HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-01 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of March 1, 2000
March 3, 2000
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to order. Meeting was called to Order at 9:01 a.m., by the
Chairman. All BOS members present.
4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
· Drew Stevenson was present on behalf of The Friends of White
Hall. She expressed concerns about the new White Hall Post
Office. She asked that the Board have the trailer removed.
· Mr. John Daggett, on behalf of Christmas in April, provided
information on their activities. He invited Board members to
visit one of their work sites on April 1. He also said they would
be making a request for some funding next year.
· Mr. Elmo Wright, on behalf of SOCA, asked for the Board's
support of their proposal to donate funds and plans for use of
Darden Towe Park. (This item was discussed at the end of the
meeting.)
5.1. Appropriation: United Way Childcare Scholarship Program,
$474,000 (Form #99060). APPROVED.
5.2. Appropriation: Education Grant, $12,644.75 (form #99061)
APPROVED.
5.3. Statement for VdoT's Primary Road Plan Pre-allocation
Hearing in Culpeper.
· Ms. Thomas said language regarding Mclntire Park land needs
to be updated. There are several other things that need to be
updated.
· Ms. Humphris said every year she has had a problem with the
way this statement is written. It seems to her when the
previous year's document is being updated, the document
should show the changes within the text as to whether it is old
or new language. In addition, the executive summary should
show any additions that were added to the statement.
· Ms. Thomas suggested adding under safety improvements the
bus route on Route 20 North.
· CONSENSUS of Board to get changes to Mr. Cilimberg and
put back on the consent agenda.
5.5. Route 250 West Corridor Study Final Report.
· CONSENSUS of Board to schedule presentation for April 5th
Board meeting to include presentations from the Route 250
Committee and the Route 250 Scenic Committee.
78.
Presentation on Meadow Creek Parkway.
DIRECTED staff to proceed with the RFP to seek a consultant
to develop a centerline and to review the impact of land use
implications for the Parkway.
Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Perkins thanked VdoT for work on the railroad bridge in
Crozet. He said it would be helpful if the rises were painted
white.
7b.
W Cilimberq: Planning staff work with The Friends
of White Hall, the property owner, and the Post
Office to see what can be done.
Clerk: Prepare letter acknowledging comments.
Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy
appropriate persons.
Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy
appropriate persons.
W Cilimberq: Update with changes from Board
members and put back on the consent agenda.
W Cilimberq: Planning staff to arrange for
presentations.
County Executive staff and Engineering staff:
proceed with RFP.
Clerk: Forward in letter to Angela Tucker.
Juan Wade: Review request with VdoT staff.
· Mr. Bowerman mentioned a letter he received from an
Earlysville resident about increased truck traffic on Route 743.
He passed the request to staff and asked that it be reviewed to
see if trucks can be prohibited.
8. Piedmont Virginia Community College Annual Report, None.
Dr. Friedman. RECEIVED.
9.
Presentation on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) Transportation Grant, Donna Shaunnessey.
RECEIVED.
10. School Board Report. RECEIVED.
11. Funding Request from Fore Woods Edge for Woods Edge
Apartments.
· CONSENSUS that staff draft a resolution outlining a funding
mechanism for granting the request, and staff to address
issues raised by Board members.
12.
Stormwater Management Policy.
SUPPORTED Items 1 and 3 as outlined in the
recommendations of the Executive Summary; requested
additional information on Item 2; and requested staff to move
forward to develop some more definitive information on Option
1 (under Item 4), and look at the service district concept under
Option 2.
13. ContinuationofWorkSessionLong Range CapitalNeeds. None.
RECEIVED.
14. FY2000/2001BudgetTransmittalbyCountyExecutive. None.
RECEIVED.
17. Appointments.
· REAPPOINTED Hollis Lumpkin to the Albemarle County
Service Authority Board, with term to expire on April 16, 2004.
· REAPPOINTED David Moyer to the Albemarle County Service
Authority Board, with term to expire on April 16, 2004.
· APPOINTED Karen Lilleleht to the Housing Advisory
Committee, with term to expire December 31,2003.
18. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board.
· CONSENSUS of Board to allow the Darden Towe Park
Committee to move forward with recommendations from Parks
and Recreation regarding SOCA's requested use of the Park.
· Mr. Martin mentioned a concern from a constituent regarding
the number of cars that do not display County decals.
Suggested Police do some random checks.
25. Adjourn.
· Meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
County Executive staff: Prepare letter for
Chairman's signature requesting continued federal
funding.
County Executive staff and County Attorney: Draft
resolution to go on next available agenda.
County Engineering staff: Move forward on
recommendations.
Clerk: Prepare appointment letters and update
Boards and Commissions book.
None.
/ewc
Presentation to Albermarle County Board of Supervisors
March 1, 2000
Presenter: Drew Stevenson for The Friends of White Hall
Mr. Chairman. Members of the Board. My nome is Drew Stevenson. I am here
today to speak on behalf of The Friends of White Hall, an organization of
concerned citizens that wonts to preserve the rural flavor of the historic
village of White Hall.
I don't know if you have driven out to White Hall lately. But, as you enter
the center of the village - just before Wyant's store, there is a big white
house with porches all around. That house is called White Hall and it was
built some time before 1800. That's my house. But, it is only one of many
historic homes. There's Home Place and Piedmont House both built in 1820.
There's the Piedmont Store that dates to 1847, just to name a few. These
are na, ional ,reasures, for sure. But, just as precious is the unspoiled
character of the community ,ha, surrounds it.
Those of us that cherish the simple character of this historic village know
that it one of the few untouched spots left in Albermarle Country. Today, we
are asking for your help to keep it that way.
What we love about White Hall is being directly threatened by the plans for
the new White Hall Post Office. The Friends of White Hall secured a copy
of the site plan and we now know -- hopefully not too late -- that the plan is
to transform one of the most beautiful, historic corners in White Hall into
what con only be described as an industrial parking lot setting with a trailer
in the middle.
I am very sure there isn't a person in this room that would say that the plan
for this site conforms to the intention of the County's Comprehensive Plan.
]~ am here to appeal to you to put this project on hold long enough to gather
community in-put about the situation. A handful of us have recently sought
the information about how the site will look and we feel that others should
have the time necessary to understand the facts about what is planned and
how it is going to effect, not only their day-to-day experience of life in this
village, but ultimately the future potential of White Hall, not to mention
individual property values. I hope to convince you that White Hall residents
have not been given a proper chance to consider and react to this important
community issue.
It is our opinion that this type of important change warranted a community
meeting-- or at the very least some additional publicity about what was going
on. We were not informed. We never received anything in the mail regarding
the changes under consideration and a sign wasn't posted at the site. As it
was, it appeared to be done in a manner not to invite public input. And as a
result, very few people knew about it. This is a critical community change and
it was taking place right under our noses and yet only a few people were
aware this process was in motion. We were not included in that Process. The
community at large was not consulted. Opinions were not sought, lit was
basically the rumor mill that allowed us to figure out what was happening. We
do not think that is right.
We know it has become complicated, with a lot of issues intertwined. We
also know from speaking with other communities that have experienced the
Post Office trailer solution that once one arrives, it can take a very long
time to make any kind of change. Somerset, Virginia got so frustrated after
twenty years of trying to upgrade from a trailer that they were forced to go
to Washington to get Senators Robb and Warner to help them speak directly
with the Post Master General.
We don't want to have to take those kinds of hind-sight, fix-it measures. We
want to make sure that before this big step is taken that you allow the
community to hear the facts and make up its own mind.
We feel there are two inter-related issues that need to be explored with
the community at large: where the post office is to be located and the
nature of the structure that houses it.
We feel the only choice that currently exists to address the removal of
small post office cage from Garrison's country store is much too extreme. A
trailer in the middle of a huge parking lot complete with industrial lighting,
rip-rap channel and check-dam, is not fitting of this historic village. The
trailer itself, as someone pointed out," looks more like something FEMA
would bring in after a disaster."
We feel there are many important questions that the White Hall community
at large has the right to answer for themselves and not have the Post Office
decide for them. Do we want a trailer in the middle of town? Do we care
enough about having a post office to scar the village in order to have it? Are
there any middle-ground, grass root solutions?
Unfortunately these questions have never have been asked.
]~ can not stand here today and tell you what all of my neighbors would
answer. [ do ask you to stop this process long enough to let us explore those
sentiments and come up with a solution that we can all feel good about. We
need a simple, workable solution and neither the county nor the United
States Post Office has taken the time to understand the needs of our
community.
White Hall is clearly in a period of transition: We have begun to take some
positive steps forward to protect and preserve our historic gems. Please
don't allow this plan to take us one giant step backwards. Character is
something that once lost, can rarely be regained. We ask you to have the
courage to stop this uninformed decision and live up to the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan. ]~ appeal to you to put your sense of vision for the
potential of what the historic village of White Hell could mean to Albermarle
County and to Virginia ahead of faceless Federal bureaucracy. Please support
us as a community to work it out and find a solution that is in keeping with
our vision for the future.
Thank you.
The Executive Board of The Friends of White Hall
Drew Stevenson
Ann Ergler
Elizabeth ~ibson
Donna Bennett
Shirley Cogan
5uan Woodward
Carroll bilges
Susan Dalebout
C hristm as in April®*
Charlottesville
P.O. Box 5747 · Charlottesville, VA 22905 ·
March 1, 2000
To: The Board of Supervisors; Charles Martin, Chairman:
I am pleased to attach information that I believe will interest you regarding Christmas
in April of Charlottesville, and Christmas in April, USA. The goals of our non-profit
organization are to preserve and re-vitalize houses and communities, thus assuring that
low-income homeowners, particularly those who are elderly, disabled, and have children,
are able to live in warmth, safety, and independence.
Our Charlottesville affiliate, now one of 240 affiliates in the United States, was formed
in 1991 by Darden students. Our program is still executed by Darden students, with a
Board of about 12 permanent, area residents. Last year we rehabilitated one house in
Barboursville, seven houses in the City, and.three houses in Albemarle County. Those in
the County were located on Old Lynchburg Road, Sassafras Hills Road, and Rocky Hollow
Road. Our commitments for this year are not yet complete, for our Rebuilding Day does
not take place until Saturday, April 1. At this time, however, we have scheduled the repair
of four houses in the City and three in the County. Those in the County are located at
North Garden; Old Lynchburg Road; and Sassafras Hills Road. We have also received
two inquiries from homeowners in Crozet that are being evaluated. Our income is derived
from individual, corporate, foundation, church, and community contributions. This year we
received a grant of $10,000.00 from the City's Neighborhood Planning Services. We hope
that next year the County will be able to provide some financial support, also. Although we
shall continue to rehabilitate individual houses at a variety of locations, we believe that we
can make a greater contribution if we can rehabilitate 3-6 houses on a street or in a
neighborhood. The experience of our affiliates in other parts of the country has shown that
when homes in a neighborhood are rehabilitated the complete neighborhood is re-vitalized.
We invite you to visit any of our work sites on April 1. Meanwhile, please contact me
if you would like additional information. Christmas in April: Building a Better America.
Board member
Tel. 296-5189
Spreading the spirit of volunteerism through home repair and rehabilitation
by helping low-income, disabled and elderly homeowners in communities across America.
Exhibit 5
1998-1999 INCOME & EXPENSE SUMMARY
BEGINNING BALANCE
$ 14,275.68
INCOME
Community Contributions
Corporate Contributions
Other
$ 11,012.00
$ 14,100.00
$ 797.44
TOTALINCOME
$ 25,909.44
EXPENSES
Administrative
Building Materials
Fundraising
Site Selection
Logistics
Public Relations
Storage
Event Day Support
TOTAL EXPENSES
Other Expenses (DIST)
$ 2,026.76
$ 17,214.75
$ 673.03
$ 145.45
$ 4,126.11
$ 1,971.32
$ 1,213.00
$ 909.88
$ 28,280.30
$ 1,500.00
ENDING BALANCE
$ 10,404.82
24
About Christmas in April http://www.christmasinapril.org/about.htm
FAST FACTS
Who We Help
Christmas in April provides assistance to people
who own their own home but who, because of
physical limitation or income, are not able to cover
the costs of home repair. Typically, these individuals
have a disability and/or are elderly, but Iow-income
families and non-profit facilities such as schools,
shelters and daycare centers are also included.
When We Work
After months of extensive planning and preparation,
Christmas in April culminates on National
Rebuilding Day, usually the last Saturday in April.
How It Works
Christmas in April takes its cue from the old
fashioned idea of "barn raising," with as many as 75
skilled and unskilled volunteers assigned to a
particular project. Homeowners are frequently
amazed at the sheer number of people who come
out to lend them a helping hand. They are even
more amazed at the massive amount of work that
can be accomplished by caring volunteers in a shod
period of time!
Why It Works
Christmas in April does more with less. Every dollar
spent is leveraged with over $4 in donated goods
and services. It works because it's
neighbor-helping-neighbor to build safer and
stronger communities.
Who Sponsors Christmas in April?
Funds come from corporations, individuals, labor
organizations, foundations, civic organizations and
1 of 3
2/25/2000 12:20 PM
About Christmas in April http://www.christmasinapril.org/about, htm
religious organizations interested in helping build a
better community.
How Widespread Is The Christmas In April
Program?
There are presently 240 affiliates serving over 720
cities and towns in all 50 States. The vast majority of
affiliates go by the name "Christmas in April," but a
couple are "Christmas in May," "Christmas in July"
and "Christmas in October."
How Are Homeowners Selected?
The selection process takes place locally. Qualified
homeowners are Iow-income, elderly or disabled,
and unable to make the needed repairs themselves.
Referrals come from a variety of sources including
non-profit agencies, police departments, social
service organizations, churches, synagogues and
individuals.
Is Christmas In April Affiliated With A
Particular Church Or Religion?
No. The program embraces all people: all faiths,
walks of life, racial and ethnic groups, ages and
sexes.
is There A Charge For Christmas in April's
Services?
No. All repairs are free. Our work is done with
families, not for them. Homeowners and family
members are asked to participate as extensively as
possible in the rehabilitation of their house.
How Can I Start A Christmas Ir~ April
Program?
Christmas in April is a nationally trademarked
organization. Anyone interested in organizing a
Christmas in April program should contact
Christmas in April H USA at (202) 483-9083 or (800)
4-REHAB-9 to request further information.
How Can I Contact Christmas in April?
Contact us at:
Christmas in April HUSA
2 of 3 2/25/2000 12:20 PM
Christmas i~ April's History
http://www.christmasinapril.org/history.htm
HISTORY
It is hard for many to imagine that there are
homeowners in America who have no hot water, no
electriCity, no indoor plumbing and holes in their
walls that are large enough to walk through. It is
hard to believe because we consider such unsafe
living conditions to be symptomatic of developing
nations - not of a nation that is as powerful and
advanced as the United States.
But in 1973, caring people in Midland, Texas led by
an oil scout named Bobby Trimble saw that many of
their Iow- and fixed-income neighbors were indeed
living in such deplorable conditions and decided to
take action.
Taking their cue from the old idea of "barn-raising"
they recruited volunteers to rehabilitate deteriorating
homes in their community. The name "Christmas in
April" was conferred in Midland when one of the
early recipients likened the help to "Christmas in
April."
News of the program grew and by 1988 there were
13 loosely affiliated Christmas in April operations
across the United States, including one in
Washington, DC. Patty Johnson, then Executive
Director of the Washington, D.C. program, now
President of Christmas in April H USA, recalls an
increasing deluge of calls from people across the
nation who were interested in bringing the program
to their own community. It became clear that the
need for the services provided by Christmas in April
existed in every city in America. In 1988, "Christmas
in April H USA" was officially launched providing a
focus for replicating the soon-to-be trademarked
program and for assisting in the planning,
development and execution of affiliate services.
1 of 2
2/25/2000 12:37 PM
Christmas i~ April's 1999 Impact
http://www.christmasinapril.org/impact.htm
OUR '1999 NATIONAL IMPACT
Number of houses 6,776
Number of non-profits 274
Total number of rehab sites 7,050
Number of volunteers 220,000
Number of volunteer hours 2,327,000
Estimated market value $74 million
Number of roofs 1,620
Number of accessibility improvements 1,891
Number of smoke detectors 5,675
Number of electrical rewirings 2,972
Number of plumbing repairs 3,243
Number of new hot water heaters 541
Number of new stoves 470
Number of new doors/windows 6,268
Number of heat restorations 810
Elderly people helped 10,452
People with disabilities helped 5,990
Children helped 49,458
1 ofl
2/25/2000 12:39 PM
Christmas in April: 240 Affiliates Nationwide
ALABAMA GEORGIA LOUISIANA
Birmingham Albany Acadiana
Calhoun County Appling County Calcasieu Aroa
Lee County Atlanta New Orleans
Mobile Clayton County
Montgomery Columbus MAINE
Morgan County Gwinnett County Greater Portland
Tuscaloosa County Hazlehurst/Jeff Davis Co.
Macon MARYLAND
ALASKA Paulding County Anne Arundel County
Anchorage Savannah Baltimore
Warner Robins Calvert County
ARIZONA Waycross Carroll County
Cecil County
HAWAII Charles County
Oahu Frederick County
Howard County
Tucson IDAHO Montgomery County
Lewis~Clark Valley Prin~ GeOrge's CoUnty
Queen Anne's County
ILLINOIS St. Mary's County
Aurora
Area g MASSACHUSETrS
Boston
Haverhill
Lowell
Newburyport
~gfield
CoUnty
San
South Bay
South Central LA.
Tri Cities
West Contra Costa County
West End Cities
COLORADO
Colorado Springs
Denver
CONNECTZCUT
Hartford
Manchester
Middletown
New Britain
Rockville Vernon
Stamford/Greenwich
DELAWARE
Wilmington
DIS-DR[CT OF COLUMBIA
Washington, D.C.
FLORIDA
Greater Miami
The Palm Beaches
NW ~ go)
SOUthland
Td-Cities Area
INDIANA
Duneland
East
St. Joseph
South Lake
Terro Haute
Valparaiso
IOWA
Greater Des Moines
Quad Cities
KANSAS
Emporia
Miami County
Topeka/Shawnee Co.
KENTUCKY
Paducah
MICHIGAN
Ingham County
LivingstOn· County
Oakland County
Saginaw
Tuscola County
washtenaw County
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County
Camden
Jersey City
Morris County
Newark
Ocean County
Paterson
SOUTH DAKOTA
Black Hills
TENNESSEE
Clarksville
Cleveland
Memphis
Nashville
Sparta/White County
NEW MEXICO
Albuquerque TEXAS
Sandoval County Amarillo
Santa Fe Area Ballinger
Collin County
NEW YORK Colorado City/Mitchell County
Albany (Capital Region) Dublin
The Bronx El Paso
Brooklyn Fort Worth
Broome County Hansford County
Buffalo Harlingen
Dutchess Coun~ Junction Ci~
Manhattan ~ Navarro County
Mohawk Vail N~C!~ Runnels
olean t~ ,'
Queens ~ o~J~ ,~¢~J
River Oaks
Rochester San Angelo
Staten Island San Antonio
Syracuse Snyder
Wichita County
NORTH CAROLINA
Charlotte
Wake County
UTAH
Salt Lake City
NORTH DAKOTA
BismarddMandan Area
Metro 'Fargo/Moorehead
VERMONT
Greater Buding~gn
MINNESOTA VIRGINIA
Chaska OHIO Alexandria
Shakopee Cleveland Amherst]Nelson
Twin Ofies Columbus Arlington
Dayton Bedford County
MISSISSIPPI
;ronada
MONTANA
Flathead County
NEBRASKA
Lincoln
Omaha
NEVADA
Greater Las Vegas
Truckee Meadows
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Greater Manchester
Northcoast .......~ ~harlettesville
summit ~ /Falls Church
~-~ lir~'
IA ksburg
~ County ~n County
Enid
Oklahoma C
Tulsa
OREGON St~Augusta County
Portland
Wa shington County
PENNSYLVANIA
Bradford
Greater Harrisburg
Monree County
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
WASHINGTON
Eastside
Grays Harbor
Kitsap County
SeatUe
WEST VIRGINIA
Charleston
RHODE ISLAND
Providence
SOUTH CAROLINA
Anderson
Florence
Hartsville
Spartanburg
WISCONSIN
Greater Green Bay
Milwaukee
Sheboygan
WYOMING
Sheddan County
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - United Way Childcare Scholarship
Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation #99060 in the amount of
$474,000 for the United Way Childcare Scholarship Program.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Ms. Gulati, Ms. Ralston
AGENDA DATE:
March 1,2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The United Way Child Care Scholarship Program helps Iow and moderate income working families in the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District maintain employment through direct fee-subsidies to pay for child care. The program promotes quality
childcare for children, especially "at risk" children, by allowing the parent to select a licensed or certified provider. Scholarships
are awarded based on a sliding scale fee with parents paying a portion of the cost.
DISCUSSION:
A 1992 agreement between Albemarle, Charlottesville, and the Virginia Department of Social Services approved United Way
to administer the pool funds. The 1999-00 program will expend $474,000 for direct scholarship and administrative fees. The
pool is funded by $237,000 in federal funds, $91,866 by the City of Charlottesville, $64,916 by the County of Albemarle and
$80,218 by the United Way. The Albemarle local match was approved in the 1999-00 operating budget and requires no
additional funds. Albemarle County serves as the fiscal agent and therefore, is required to appropriate the total program funds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval appropriation #99060 in the amount of $474,000 for the United Way Childcare Scholarship
Program.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCALYEAR: 99/00
TYPE OFAPPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED?
FUND:
PURPOSE OFAPPROPRIATION:
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
YES
NO X
GRANT
99060
FUNDING FOR UNITED WAY CHILD CARE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1550 53110 390056 ADMIN. FEE-UNITED WAY $39,000.00
1 1550 53110 567910 DAY CARE GRANT $435,000.00
TOTAL $474,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1550 33000 330014 HHS. UN. WAY. GRANT $237,000.00
2 1550 33501 160502 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 91,866.00
2 1550 33501 160525 UNITED WAY 80,218.00
2 1550 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM G/F 64,916.00
TOTAL $474,000.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OFFINANCE
SIGNATURE
SOCIALSERVlCES
DATE
FEB. 18,2000
BOARD OFSUPERVlSORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Education Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation #99061 in the
Amount of $12,644.75 for various contributions and grants.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Castner, Breeden; Ms. White; Ms. Gulati
AGENDA DATE:
March 1,2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Donations: Broadus Wood Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,518.75. This donation will be used to
fund the salary of the Spanish teacher at Broadus Wood Elementary School.
Albemarle County Schools received a donation from Mr. Brian Wheeler in the amount of $75.00. This donation is to be used
for the general support of the schools.
VEA Mini-Grant Awards: Two Albemarle County Public School teachers have been awarded Virginia Education Association
(VEA) Mini-Grant Awards: Steve Gissendanner, Broadus Wood Elementary School, in the amount of $500.00 and Marshall
Chase, Stony Point Elementary School, in the amount of $500.00. The grants will fund a project that will provide field trips for
5th grade students to do authentic scientific research and 3® grade students with a project to promote self-esteem through the
completion of a community action project.
Teacher Incentive Grants: Six Albemarle County Schools have been awarded Teacher Incentive Grants from the Virginia
Commission for the Arts in the total amount of $7,186.00. Broadus Wood Elementary in the amount of $300.00; Greer
Elementary in the amount of $300.00; Hollymead Elementary in the amount of $586.00; Meriwether Lewis Elementary in the
amount of $300.00; Stony Point Elementary in the amount of $3,000.00; and Woodbrook Elementary in the amount of
$2,700.00. The Teacher Incentive Grant Program has been established to help strengthen the quality of education in and
through the elementary and secondary schools and to encourage innovative projects which link the arts with non-arts curricula
Refuqee School Impact Grant: The Albemarle County Public Schools has received a Refugee School Impact Grant award
from the Virginia Department of Education's Secondary Office of Instruction in the amount of $2,865.00. These funds will be
used to provide additional services for Albemarle's increasing multicultural population, which includes refugees. The grant
program will run in coordination with the evening Adult ESL classes, targeting K-12 Limited English Proficient (LEP) refugee
students with special emphasis placed on reading, writing and mathematical concepts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations totaling $12,644.75, as detailed on Appropriation
#99061.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 NUMBER
99061
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
VARIOUS CONTRIBUTIONS AND SCHOOL RELATED GRANTS.
CODE
1 2201 61101 132100
1 2201 61101 210000
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Broadus Wood PT Wages-Teacher $1,404.85
FICA 113.90
1 2410 60100 999981 School School Bd Reserve 75.00
1 3104 61311 420110 Incentive Grants Sch. Transpo~ation 500.00
1 3104 61311 601300 InstMat 500.00
1 3104 60201 601300 Inst Mat 300.00
1 3104 60204 601300 Inst Mat 300.00
1 3104 60205 601300 Inst Mat 586.00
1 3104 60206 601300 Inst Mat 300.00
1 3104 60211 601300 InstMat 3,000.00
1 3104 60212 601300 Inst Mat 2,700.00
1 3123 61101 132100 Refugee Grant PT Wages-Teacher 2,292.31
1 3123 61101 210000 FICA 189.89
1 3123 61101 601300 InstSupplies 382.80
TOTAL $12,644.75
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $1,518.75
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation 75.00
2 3104 18000 181236 VEAGrant-BroadusWood 500.00
2 3104 18000 181237 VEAGrant-StonyPoint 500.00
2 3104 24000 240327 Incentive Grant-BroadusWood 300.00
2 3104 24000 240239 Incentive Grant-Greer 300.00
2 3104 24000 240330 Incentive Grant-Hollymead 586.00
2 3104 24000 240332 Incentive Grant-M-Lewis 300.00
2 3104 24000 240355 Incentive Grant-StonyPoint 3,000.00
2 3104 24000 240344 Incentive Grant-Woodbrook 2,700.00
2 3123 24000 240359 Refugee Grant 2,865.00
TOTAL $12,644.75
REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION
APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
FEB. 18,2000
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County Six Year Primary Road Improvement Plan
Priorities
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion of recommendation to be submitted to VDOT at
its Primary Road Plan Pre-Allocation Public Hearing in
Culpeper
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade
AGENDA DATE:
March 1,2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On April 4, 2000, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will conduct its annual pre-allocation hearing in
Culpeper for improvements to the interstate and primary system for the Culpeper District. All roads with route numbers
below 600 are primary roads (i.e. Route 29, Route 250).
DISCUSSION:
The Six Year Primary Road Plan process differs from the Six Year Secondary Road Plan process in that a specific
amount of funds are set aside for secondary road projects in the County, whereas funds for primary road projects are
allocated for each construction district, and all primary road projects proposed within all localities of the district compete
for those funds. The Culpeper District includes Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison,
Orange and Rappahannock Counties.
Attachment A is a draft copy of the County's improvement priorities for the primary system for the Culpeper District. This
draft is based on the County's 1999 priority list.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff can provide a final draft for review and approval prior to the April 4th VDOT hearing, if necessary, should the Board
offer any changes.
CC:
Attachment:
Ms. Angela G. Tucker
2000primary plan update.exe.doc
00.032
ATTACHMENT A
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2000 SPRING
PRE-ALLOCATION MEETING FOR THE INTERSTATE, PRIMARY, AND URBAN
SYSTEMS, AND FOR MASS TRANSIT
RECOMMENDED ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITIES
The following addresses Albemarle County's priorities for each allocation of TEA-21 and each sub-
allocation of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds.
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Standard Projects:
The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds not set aside. The County
supports these projects as referenced.
1)
Undertake those Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) projects eligible for the
primary program in sequence as called for in the February 2, 1992 joint resolution between
the City, County and University and agreed to by VDOT. In addition to Route 29
improvements already completed or currently planned, construct Meadow Creek Parkway
from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 North. The Parkway is the County's highest priority
project after the Route 29 improvements, and is of the utmost importance in order to maintain
an adequate level of service on Route 29 and to improve the overall roadway system serving
the urbanizing area north of the City. The first phase of this project from the Route 250
Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in the County's secondary program. This project is being
planned as a low speed parkway in the City of Charlottesville, and the County asks that the
same design aspects be employed from Melbourne Road to Rio Road. In particular, the
County asks that this section be designed within a linear park concept that replaces Mclntire
Park land lost due to the project and, at the same time, links Mclntire Park to the Rivanna
Foundation Trails along Meadow Creek and the County's urbanizing area along Rio Road.
In an effort to further this project, the County is also receiving funding within its Secondary
Plan for planning and design of the Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29
North. County staff is working closely with VDOT staff to get the design process underway.
However, it is not possible to construct this project within a reasonable timeframe solely with
secondary funding due to the cost and dramatic impact it will have on the timing for
completion of other important secondary projects. The County believes the Parkway will
meet the criteria for inclusion in the primary system. With the Commonwealth Transportation
Board's past decision to eliminate the Route 29 interchanges, the County believes primary
funds should be redirected to the Parkway and wants to work with VDOT staff to evaluate
construction of subsequent phases as a primary road, provided it will accelerate the Parkway's
completion. For the 9th consecutive year the County urges VDOT to investigate all possible
funding sources, particularly primary road funds, to achieve the quickest construction of this
vitally important roadway. Other projects listed in CATS in the northern study area also
should be actively pursued and completed. These projects include the Airport Road
improvements and the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Road Connector. The County also supports any
initiatives to re-open consideration of the Route 29 interchanges at Hydraulic Rd., Greenbrier
Dr. and Rio Rd., possibly under modified design concepts.
2)
The County is closely following the Route 29 Corridor Study. The Route 29 Phase I Corridor
Study recommendations were forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board in 1996
with the County's endorsement. The recommendations emphasized use of an access
management approach in lieu of a limited access road design. The County feels these
recommendations should be the basis in developing plans for the third phase of the Route 29
widening project from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the Airport/Proffit Road
intersection. County staff comments on the preliminary plans for this section of road have
consistently supported this approach in lieu of a limited access design. The Route 29 Phases
II and III Corridor Study continues. The County appreciates efforts that have been made in
this process to receive public input. Again, the County does not support a limited access
design for the Albemarle County section of the corridor. The County continues to hope that
the study will be truly multi-modal in scope and give particular consideration to the benefits
of rail service to the corridor.
3)
The County supports the funding of the TransDominion Express and recommends that it be
seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the issues and recommendations
identified in the Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study being considered in the Route 29 Phases
II and III Corridor Study.
4)
Undertake the widening of Route 20 south from 1-64 to Mill Creek Dr. that serves the traffic
from Monticello High School. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these
improvements.
5)
Undertake road projects adjacent to the Route 29 North Corridor that will relieve traffic on
Route 29 by providing better service to local traffic. Such projects include the Hillsdale
Drive-Zan Road Connector and new roads parallel to Route 29 between the South Fork
Rivanna River and Airport Road/Proffit Road that would be built in conjunction with the
Route 29 widening project.
6)
Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into all parallel street improvements associated
with the Route 29 improvements from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport
Road/Proffit Road.
7)
Widen Route 250 west from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This section is
covered by a joint design study by the City, County and University of Virginia and was
recognized for improvement in the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study. The joint study
2
should be used as a guide in developing the widening plans. The remaining portion of Rt. 250
West to Yancey Mills (the 1-64/250 interchange) has been under study by VDOT with a local
advisory committee to determine long term needs for this road. Final recommendations are
forthcoming. VDOT is also completing a similar study of Rt. 250 East from Free Bridge to
the Fluvanna County line. The County supports and appreciates this effort and encourages
continued public participation and consideration of recommendations.
8)
Finish the VDOT corridor study of Route 240 in Crozet and improve Route 240 in accord
with County recommendations regarding this study.
9)
Undertake improvements to Fontaine Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to the
improvements along the frontage of the University Real Estate Foundation development. The
County supports the recommendations identified by the Fontaine Avenue Task Force.
Recognize that mass transit can relieve traffic congestion and is an alternative to road
construction, particularly in more densely developed urban areas, and dedicate funds to
accomplish this.
Safety Improvements:
Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this 10% set-aside. They are, in priority order:
1) Construct pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County's Urban
Neighborhoods. Absent the incorporation of such road walkways into full road
widening/improvement projects, the following road sections are priorities for pedestrian
walkways: 1) Route 20 North from Route 250 East to Wilton Farm Apartments and Darden
Towe Park; 2) Route 20 south from the City line to Mill Creek Drive; 3) along Route 250
east in the Pantops area as an extension to existing sidewalks; 4) along Route 250 West from
the City limits to the Bypass; 5) Route 240 in "downtown" Crozet. Of these, the walkways
along Route 20 north are the most important improvement. Pedestrian travel along this road
has increased significantly with the development in that area. There is great concern with the
safety of walking along this segment of road as it currently exists.
2)
Installation of traffic signals at the Route 22 and Route 250 intersection and the 1-64
interchange ramps at Fifth Street.
3)
Improvements to Route 250 West along the business corridor in Ivy (from just east of the
intersection of Route 637 to just west of the intersection of Route 678) to address existing
and short-term traffic circulation problems, including access to developed properties in this
area. These improvements should be undertaken in accordance with recommendations
approved by the Board of Supervisors in the Route 250 West Corridor Study.
4) Improvements to the Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad tracks in Crozet.
5) Functional plans for Route 20 North and South for alignment improvements.
3
6)
Functional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22 and
231. The County remains concerned with overall public safety as it relates to traffic created
by large trucks along these road segments, and encourages VDOT to consider all appropriate
measures to ensure that trucks travel safely along these roadways in the future. Restriction
of through truck traffic is still considered by the County to be the most effective measure.
Enhancement Projects:
Several projects appear to be eligible for enhancement funds. They are, in priority order:
1) Construction of pedestrian walkways along Route 20 North.
2)
Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Route 20, 29 and Route 250) and Airport
Road connecting Route 29 and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport - landscaping, signage,
placement of overhead utilities underground, etc.
3)
Completion of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation trail project between the
Monticello Vistors Center and Monticello.
4)
Construction of bikeway facilities as prioritized in the Bicycle Plan for the City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County (adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an element of
the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 1991).
5)
6)
7)
Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system.
Beautification of streets in Scottsville through the Scottsville Streetscape project.
Removal of non-conforming billboards.
National Highway System (NHS)
The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this
area excluding the Route 29 Bypass. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has approved
the NHS, which includes the existing Route 29, and the Route 29 Bypass. The County's highest
priority project in the proposed NHS is the completion of the widening of Route 29 North from the
South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Road. The County desires to continue active participation
in Route 29 Corridor studies, including the Route 29 Corridor Study south of Charlottesville, which
is currently underway. The County will monitor the progress and recommendations of the Route 29
Corridor Studies, which are part of the NHS (additional information is provided under Standard
Projects #2).
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of non-attainment for ozone
or carbon monoxide.
4
Albemarle Housinq Zmprovement Program, :[nc.
700 HARRIS STR~, SUi'T~ 101, O~L(Yr'r~SVILL~, V~ 22gO3el'~L~P~ON~ (804)$17-AHIP,~,FAX: (80~) 817-24~O~EMAIL: AHIP@AHIPVA.~G
MEMORANDUM
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
From: Theresa Tapscott, Executive Director- AHIP
Nicholas Munger, AHIP Board President
Date: February 17, 2000
Re: Year 2000 Revisions to Regional Consolidated Plan
Thank you for the opportunity to speak last night regarding the Consolidated Plan. As a
follow up to the public hearing, we'd like to once again urged you to continue to prioritize housing
rehabilitation activities for Iow income County residents. As time was limited last night, we did not
offer a great deal of detail supporting our position. Therefore, on behalf of the Board of Directors and
Staff of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AH!P), we submit the following comments
regarding HOME Investment Partnership Funds.
The Consolidated Plan is a required document specifically related to HOME and CDBG
entitlement funding. But beyond that narrow requirement, the Consolidated Plan ouUines the overall
strategy for addressing housing needs in the region and therefore includes information regarding
other available affordable housing resources. The AHTP Board and Staff feel it is essential that all
sources of funding available to the region be considered when decisions are made regarding
Consortium HOME funding, and we thus refer you to AL13chment ! hereto, which outlines the funding
resources we have typically employed in carrying out our work.
As the chart shows, there are many sources of funding available to assist Iow income families
with their housing needs. But as the chart also indicates, many of the available sources entail
complicated restrictions which may intimidate the average borrower or inexperienced non-profit
organization. Largely because of the County's ongoing administrative support, AH!P Staff has
developed the expertise to be able to match families and projects with available resources.
HOME Consortium Program funding may be utilized for a variety of purposes, including first
time homebuyer assistance, affordable rental housing development, and homeowner housing
rehabilitation. Since the inception of the HOME Consortium in PD-10, Albemarle County has chosen
to invest its 1/6t~ share in housing rehabilitation activities for families below 60% of the Area Median
TnCome. These funds have been used by AHIP to assist families living in severely substandard
housing. Even though these assisted families were living in housing with serious health and safety
hazards, they could not qualify for funding from the State's indoor Plumbing/Rehabilitation Program
because they had indoor plumbing. And due to the extent of the deficiencies in their homes and their
very iow incomes, these families could not have qualified for other home improvement loan products.
The families typically served with HOME Consortium funding have little if any repayment ability, and
their homes need substantial rehabilitation costing in the range of $15,000 to $25,000.
Because of the availability of the Consortium HOME funding, AHIP is able to leverage
whatever amount a family may be able to borrow with HOME deferred loan monies. Without the
Consortium HOME funds, AHIP would have very limited resources with which to assist such families.
Until such time as the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) changes
its cdteda for the use of Indoor Plumbing Rehabilitation funds, or another flexible funding source is
developed, we strongly urge the County to continue to utilize its Consortium HOME funding to assist
Iow income home owners in Albemarle County rehabilitate their existing, but substandard, housing.
As the chart further illustrates, by targeting its Consortium HOME funding for housing
rehabilitation activities, the County would not preclude other affordable housing development
activities. AH[P is knowledgeable regarding the listed resources and has the capadty to access and
utilize these funding sources. We are confident that, with the County's continued organizational
support, we will be able to blend the available resources to provide a wide range of affordable
housing products. But, as advocates for the very poor, we emphasize our belief that AH[P has a
continuing responsibility to obtain and provide the information necessary to insure that the limited
resources available for affordable housing activities are utilized effectively and fairly, and that HOME
funds are used to assist those families most in need, in a manner consistent with the spirit and intent
of the HOME legislation.
in particular, we would reiterate that:
· The County has made a commitment to utilize scarce government resources to serve its lowest
income dtizens.
· Very low income families can seldom afford to pay a loan back.
· It is very expensive to maintain and create housing of any kind in Albemarle County. If it is to be
affordable to the people who need it most, concessions will have to be made, i.e., loans will have
to be deferred and/or forgiven.
The HONE Consortium funding has indeed met the goal of serving the County's neediest
families. It has also served as a catalyst for bringing together the region's non-profit housing
providers to work as a team. Through the sharing of expertise, ideas, and resources, Planning
Distdct 10 has become a model of cooperation throughout the State. We feel fortunate to be a part of
this shared effort and, as always, stand ready to assist you as the revision process proceeds.
Imp£oving /~ou$i~g-E~uiid~g Community
Memorandum
Date: February 16, 2000
To: Bill Wanner
From: Theresa Tapscott, HOward Evergreen, Connie Massie, JeffNorth
Re: CHDO Loan Program
As you requested, Howard and I have met twice to draft revised guidelines for the Regional CHDO Loan
Program administered by the Piedmont Housing Alliance. Connie Massie of the Nelson County
Community Development Foundation, and JeffNorth of the Skyline Community Action Agency have
also met with us to provide input in to the revision.
As you're aware, we've been concerned the is not performing the as effectively as we had all hoped.
According to the Center for Community Change, '~the Participating Jurisdiction has wide discretion in
designing its program. The CHDO is also encouraged to exercise creativity and flexibility to meet a
variety of needs." We all support the objective of utilizing the regional non-profit as a mechanism for
insuring all localities have access to CItDO funds. However, we feel there are certain aspects that could
be improved upon in order facilitate more flexibility, creativity, and capacity building within the
community based non-profits. To that end, we propose the following revisions/clarifcafion regarding
CHDO set-aside funds:
· CHDO funds would no longer automatically be divided equally among the six participating
jurisdictions. Rather a review committee consisting of the members of the Executive Director's
Council would score and approve proposals on a case by case basis. The review committee would
consider the equal share agreement in their decision to fund or not fund. The purpose of no longer
requiring the equal division is twofold: to simplify the accounting process, and; provide amounts of
funding on an annual basis sufficient to develop larger scale projects.
· Establish a Selection Criteria upon which CHDO proposals will be ranked. In order to be eligible,
proposals will have to meet a predetermined threshold score. Criteria will include:
1. Income level to be served
-Projects serving lowest income levels will be given priority.
2. Proposed per unit cost
-Projects serving the greatest number of families at the lowest cost will be given
priority.
3. Project Schedule
-Projects must have a realistic schedule for completion.
4. Project Feasibility
-Zoning: .Projects with the proper zoning approvals will be given priority.
-Access to utilities (including water (well) & sewer (septic)): Projects must be able to
document that utilities are available to the site. This includes documentation that a soil
analYsis indicates the feasibility of wells and/or septic fields.'
-Local Support: Proposals must include documentation that the local government is
supportive of the development. (Realistically we know that local government may not
always be supportive of an application that is valid. The purpose of this requirement is
to insure limited CHDO funds are not tied up in a project that may take years in the
approval process.)
Applicants must be 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) organizations.
· Limit annual appropriations to any one project to $50,000 (Short term loans in excess of'$50,000
would be considered based on the mm around time and the availability of funds).
· Terms and interest rates (if any) will be negotiated on a case by case basis.
· Permit grants up to $25,000 annually for the following housing related activities:
1. Pre-development Activities: Predevelopment funds would be originally issued as
repayable loans. However, in the event the project falls through, the loan may be
forgiven.
2. Predetermined Fair Housing Activities as permitted by HUD regulations.
3. Needs Assessments/Housing Surveys as permitted by HUD regulations.
4. Technical Assistance that is project specific.
5. Other housing related services approved by the review committee.
· Once a development project (excluding grants as outlined above) project is approved by the Review
Committee, the sponsoring agency may receive a fee of 10% of the loan amount, up to a maximum of
$2000. The purpose of the fee is to offset administrative costs incurred by the, agency as a result of
developing a new project (i.e., consultant fees, additional clerical support, grant/financing application
preparation fees). The 10% fee may be utilized to procure these services from another agency. In
order to be eligible for the 10% fee, the sponsoring agency must submit a budget that substantiates
the need for administrative funds (In other words, if the project can be developed within the agency's
normal budget, we see no need to provide this funding just because we can.)
This 10% fee is currently split between the sponsoring agency and PHA (unless negotiated
differently). Additionally, another fee of 10% is paid to PHA upon repayment of a loan. Obviously,
over time the CHDO fund would be completely depleted by fees under the current structure. AS most
of the CHDO loans involve only two or three transactions over the life of the loan, we feel the $3500
fee paid annually by the PDC to PHA is fair. In the event PHA has a significant role in developing
the project, they may negotiate a fee for services from the sponsoring agency that would be reflected
in the required budget.
Loan principal payments will be recycled in activities as outlined above. In order to maintain as much
of the CHDO funding as possible in direct programmatic activities, any interest payments will be
utilized to offset the fees associated with project development. PHA may retain 10% of interest
earnings to offset administrative costa PHA will submit monthly reports to the Director's Council
regarding the status of the CHDO fund (i.e. account balances, interest earnings, payments received,
etc.)
I hope these comments and suggestions will be helpful as you proceed with the 2000 update of the
Consolidated Plan.
CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219-2000
K. E. LANTZ, JR.
'TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ENGINEER
February22,2000
Route 250 West Corridor Study
Final Report
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Administrator
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Dear Mr. Tucker:
Enclosed you will find 20 copies of the final report for the Route 250 West
Corridor Study for distribution to the Board of Supervisors, other local officials and local
libraries. Additional copies of the report are being sent to the VDOT Residency Office in
Albemarle County, Thomas Jefferson Planning District, and Virginia State Library.
If you have any questions or need additional copies, please call me at
(804) 786-9483.
Sincerely, /.~_._
William A. Guiher
Transportation Engineer Senior
CC:
Don Wells
Wayne Woodcock
Wayne Cilimberg
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
February 25, 2000
Board of Supervisors
Meetings
January 5, 2000
February 7, 2000
Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Carey:
We offer the following comments regarding transportation matters that were discussed at
the January 5 and February 7, 2000, Board meetings.
A petition to cul-de-sac the western end of Route 738, Morgantown Road, was submitted to
the Board of Supervisors. Additional right of way along Route 738 and Route 250 will be
needed in order to provide a right turn lane on Route 250 at the next intersection with Route
738, and to provide an appropriate turn around at the dead end section of Route 738. If right
of way is available through dedication, these improvements can be made relatively soon.
Otherwise, a project will need to be set up in the Secondary Six Year Plan and prioritized
accordingly.
· We will address improvements to Routes 712 (Coles Rolling Road) and 606 (Dickerson
Road) and 806 (Estes Ridge) in the Secondary Six Year Plan as requested.
· We have completed the necessary maintenance to Route 806 (Estes Ridge) as requested.
· We have requested a review of the passing zone on Route 20 in front of Vintage market.
will share the results of this study with the Board once it is complete.
· Repairs to the potholes on Route 663 (Simmons Gap Road ) have been completed.
Ms. Ella Carey
Board of Supervisors Meetings
Page 2
February 25, 2000
! have discussed the request for guardrail installation on Route 20 north near Park Hill
Lumber with a concerned citizen. There currently exists no shoulders for standard guardrail
installation, therefore, delineators have been installed to indicate the lack of shoulder in this
area and to guide motorists safely around the curves.
The following is a list of names and phone numbers for all area superintendents in Albemarle
and Greene Counties. Please forward any maintenance issues directly to them and copy me
or share them directly with me.
Yancey Mills Area Headquarter
Lee Huff, Superintendent
804 823-5610
Huff OL~vdot. state.va.us
Free Union Area Headquarter
Harold Gentry, Superintendent
804 973-5170
Gentry HW~vdot. state.va.us
Boyd Tavern Area Headquarter
Kenneth Staton, Superintendent
804 977-6900
Staton KW~vdot. state.va.us
Keene Area Headquarter
Eugene Rush, Superintendent
804 286-3201
Rush EJ~vdot. state.va.us
Stanardsville Area Headquarter
Cecil Gibson, Superintendent
804 985-2500
Gibson CA~vdot. state.va.us
Ms. Ella Carey
Board of Supervisors Meetings
Page 3
February 25, 2000
Please share this information with the Board. ! will be prepared to discuss this and other
transportation matters at the March 1 Board meeting.
Sincerely,
A. G. Tucker
AGT/smk
Cc: V.W. Cilimberg
?o: Members, Board of Supervisors ,~
From: Ella Washington Carey, CMC,~~
Subject: Reading 13st for March I, 2000
i)ate: February 25, 2000
October 6, 1999
November 3, 1999 -
November I O, 1999 (A) -
December 1, t 999 -
January 12, 2000 -
January 19, 2000 -
Ms. Thomas - pages 25 (Item Cf I 1) - end
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Perkins
/ewc
Meadowcreek Parkway Phase I
Design Presentation
March 1, 2000
Our goal is to present the latest and most refined version of the project plans and to move
the project to the right of way acquisition phase.
The following seven elements have been identified as critical by the County. We have
addressed each of these elements in the current version of the plans.
1. Use a 35 mph mph design speed.
· For the proposed design speed, many of the vertical curves are very close to the maximum
allowable grade.
· While the horizontal curves are gentler, increases in the overall vertical curvature would
result in a dramatic increase in earthwork.
2. Preserve the ballfield.
· Road is as close as possible to the ballfield to eliminate impacts to the stream.
· Access to ballfield has been maintained.
· Emergency access to linear park is available.
3. Minimize impacts to stream and flood plain.
· Stream rechanneling has been eliminated.
· Alignment has been shifted slightly to the west to reduce impact to the stream.
4. Lay road lightly on the land.
· Significant reduction in the vertical design speed is apparent on the vertical profile.
· Slope rounding will blend roadway into existing terrain.
5. Create an attractive road with an enhanced viewshed.
· The close fit of the road to existing terrain will enhance the appearance of the parkway.
· The road will overlook the stream for some length.
· Detailed landscaping plan will compliment natural surroundings.
6. Use the historical railroad bed.
· The enhanced pedestrian trail follows the old railroad bed for most of its length.
· This reduces the amount of earthwork that will be needed to construct this facility.
7. Create a linear park.
· Provide parkland on both sides of the alignment throughout its length.
· Careful fit of the parkway to the existing topography.
· Use the historic railroad bed for pedestrian trail; points of interest.
We believe that the current version of the plans addresses all of the elements that have
been identified by the County-as critical. Our recommendation for progress is to carefully
consider those impacts that may delay the project with little or no improvement to the final
project design.
Piedmont Virginia Community College Profile
Purpose: Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) is a state-supported two-year college with
the primary mission of meeting the educational needs of its students and of its service region through
excellence in teaching and leadership in community service. PVCC provides the first two years of
baccalaureate study for students who wish to transfer to four-year colleges and universities, and offers
programs to support the growth and development of the area's worforce.
Service Region: The college's service region includes Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and
Nelson counties, the northern half of Buckingham County, and the city of Charlottesville.
Location: PVCC's campus is located at 501 College Drive in Charlottesville, Virginia (just south of
the intersection of State Route 20 and Interstate 64). The campus consists of the 105,000 square foot
main building and the new 36,500 square foot V. Earl Dickinson Building for Humanities and Social
Sciences.
Cost: During the 1999-2000 academic year, Virginia residents pay $37.12 per semester credit hour,
and out-of-state residents pay $164.82 per semester credit hour. In addition, each semester students
pay a $6.00 college service fee, a $5.00 student activity fee, and a technology fee of $1.50 per credit
hour.
Enrollment: PVCC's annual unduplicated student headcount for 1998-99 was 6,981 and its annual
Full-Time Equivalent Student (FTES) enrollment was 2,027. During Fall Semester 1998, the college's
headcount was 4,201 and FTES enrollment was 1,832.
Programs: Degrees are offered in the following programs: Associate in Arts (liberal arts and visual
and performing arts); Associate in Science (business administration, education, general studies, and
physical and natural sciences); Associate in Applied Science (business and management, business and
office, information systems technology, electrical/electronics technology, mechanical technology,
nursing, and protective services). Certificates are offered in four programs and Career Studies
Certificates in 21 programs.
Faculty & Staff: PVCC employs 52 full-time faculty members, 183 part-time faculty, 24
administrative and non-teaching faculty, and 55 classified staff.
Revenues: Total revenues for 1997-98 were $10,608,283 (State = 49%, Tuition = 29%, Grants = 20%,
and Other = 2%).
Economic Impact: PVCC has a direct economic impact of $15;923,351 upon its service region and
$16,224,436 upon the Commonwealth of Virginia. The college has an estimated (or indirect)
economic impact upon its service region of $31,146,075 and $34,071,316 upon the state. For every
dollar spent by service region localities, PVCC generates $1,595. For every state dollar invested in the
college, PVCC generates $6.20.
Accreditation: PVCC is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools (1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, Georgia 30033-4097: telephone number 404-
679-4501) to award associate degrees. PVCC's nursing program is accredited by both the National
League for Nursing and the Virginia State Board of Nursing.
PVCC STUDENT OUTCOMES
Transfer
· Approximately 300 PVCC students transfer per year; 2/3 transfer to the University of Virginia, James Madison
University, and Mary Baldwin College
· 1,498 transferred to UVA in 26 years
· Approximately 40-50% of all Virginia Community College System transfers to UVA are from PVCC
· PVCC students earn a mean GPA of 3.319 at UVA--higher than native UVA students
Workforce
* ' PVCC averages 110 A.A.S. degree graduates and 50 certificate graduates per year
· Graduates earn high employer satisfaction
· Graduates express high satisfaction with their PVCC education
PVCC SERVICE TO ALBEMARLE COUNT"ir
In 1998-99, PVCC served 6,981 students, 2,390 of whom were residents of Albemarle County. This
accounted for 34.2 percent of the college's total enrollment and 3.0 percent of the county's total population. The
Albemarle County enrollment included 105 members (29.2 percent) of the 1998 graduating class of Albemarle
High School, 54 (24.3 percent) from Western Albemarle, and 7 (31.8 percent) from Murray High School.. The
enrollment represented 50.5 percent of all Albemarle County residents attending a college or university in Virginia.
PVCC's courses offered in the evening at Albemarle High School had an enrollment of 881. PVCC rents
classrooms each semester at a cost of $18,000 a year. The Fall 1998 profile is presented below.
Fall 1998 Enrollment
College Totals Albemarle Totals
Category No. Pct. No. Pct.
Total Number 4,201 100.0% 1,474' 1013.0%
Full-Time 871 '2017% 302 '20.5%
Part-Time 3,330 79.3% 1,172 79.5%
New 1,348 32.1% 364 24.7%
Returning 2,853 67.9% 1,110 75.3°,{
Male 1,672 39.8% 584 39.6%~
Female 2,529 60.2% 890 ' ' ' 60.4%
White ' 3,501 83.3% 1,278 86:7%
African-American ..... 485 11.5% 125 8.5%
Other Race 215 5.1% 71 4.8%
PVCC serves Central Virginia and Albemarle County by training the local workforce. The college
prepares its students--the vast majority of whom remain in Central Virginia--for career-ladder jobs. The college
offers customized training programs flexibly scheduled to accommodate workplace hours and needs. In 1998-99,
2,146 students enrolled in noncredit training classes and more than 100 businesses received workforce services.
Clients included Albemarle County and the Albemarle County Schools as well as Avionics Specialties, The Boar's
Head Inn, Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors, Comdial Corporation, GE Fanuc, Humagen Fertility
Diagnostics, Lakeland Tours, Monticello Foundation, National Ground Intelligence Center, Pharmaceutical
Research Associates, QualChoice, Sperry Marine, State Farm Insurance Companies, Virginia Department of
Forestry and the Virginia Division of Mineral Resources. A recent addition to workforce training is employer-
sponsored programs which link students with high-paying technical jobs in the area. These include surgical
technologist, biotechnology, financial accounting analyst, insurance support technician, customer service
technician-electronics, and multimedia/web design.
9/99
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
TANF Transportation Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
JAUNT Report on the TANF Transportation Grant
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White
AGENDA DATE:
March 1, 2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION: X
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle Department of Social Services was awarded a transportation grant in November, 1997 to provide
access to jobs for their TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) clients through various community
transportation providers. The program received additional money in 1998 and 1999.
The attached final report provides statistical and anecdotal information on the grant's success in the area's
welfare reform efforts.
RECOMMENDATION:
This information is provided for the Board's information and requires no action at this time. Donna Shaunesey,
JAUNT's Executive Director will present the report at the meeting.
00.031
FINAL TANF TRANSPORTATION GRANT REPORT
(preliminary)
In November 1997, the Albemarle County Department of Social Services was
awarded a grant to provide access to jobs using a combination of transportation
providers. The program, which received additional funding in October 1998 and
January 1999, was completely successful in eliminating transportation as a
barrier to employment in Charlottesville, Albemarle and Fluvanna. As a result of
this program, 350 VIEW recipients were carried to wOrk or job searches, and an
additional 89 were registered with the program so that they were assured of
having backup transportation in an emergency.
Description and Success of the Project
The overall goal of the program was to provide VIEW participants without
cars affordable transportation to jobs and while looking for work. At the time the
grant was written there were 298 VIEW participants without cars. The objective
of the program was to provide ongoing transportation to at least half that group
and we exceeded that goal by 136%. The project approached the need for more
public transportation with a variety of solutions, including expanded services and
better access to existing services. The overall project was guided by a Project
Advisory Committee (PAC), consisting of employment services workers from all
three Departments of Social Services. The array of services included:
Access to fixed route transportation in Charlottesville and urban
Albemarle. Over the course of the project, 90 VIEW recipients were provided
with 14,670 bus passes to allow them to ride Charlottesville Transit Service.
Demand-response service throughout Fluvanna, Albemarle, and
Charlottesville, using a combination of JAUNT vehicles and taxicabs providing
JAUNT service under a subcontract. Over the course of the project, 308 VIEW
recipients were provided with 53,164 rides for job-related purposes. These trips
often included stops at day care. VIEW recipients were not charged a fare, but
fares were charged when neighbors rode along on the route to help offset the
cost of the service. Some passengers used JAUNT as their primary means of
transportation; others utilized the service only when their regular transportation
arrangements fell through.
Hiring and training VIEW clients to serve as drivers for JAUNT. Over the
course of the project seven recipients were hired as drivers; all who have passed
the six month probation period and obtained their Commercial Driver's Licenses
have become full-time, benefited employees. Drivers were paid while training,
and the qualifying physical exam and drug testing were also paid for by the
agency.
In addition, as a result of passenger surveys done during the course of the
grant, it became clear that many VIEW clients did not have driver's licenses, so
JAUNT's Project Coordinator put together a program that initially took 15 clients
through both the classroom and in-car training. Following this successful effort,
Albemarle County took over the responsibility for future driver's license classes.
Survey Results
The local Departments of Social Services were surveyed in July 1998, and 100%
indicated that they felt the program had helped their VIEW clients find and/or
maintain employment. Overall satisfaction with JAUNT's service was high.
Workers offered the following comments on their surveys:
"The transportation my clients get for their children to day care
simplifies an otherwise extremely logistically challenging and time-
consuming responsibility for them. Since JAUNT reliably gets
those kids there by the same time every day, the main reason why
many of our clients are often late for work becomes obsolete."
"(JAUNT's program) has helped remove a long-standing excuse not
to work for some clients, and made them accept that they can
work."
"It has enabled many to take that first step to self-sufficiency that
would have otherwise been much harder for them to accomplish."
"(JAUNT's service) Has been extremely helpful to clients in being
able to accept employment at places off the bus route and after the
hours buses stop running."
"Thank God it's available or a lot of our clients would not be
working!"
Surveys were also done of those using the JAUNT service in March and
September of 1998. They revealed that passengers were generally satisfied with
the JAUNT service, and further that during that six month period the average
salary rose 37C/hour. A final ridership survey will be undertaken in January
2000; we will be especially interested in salary changes over the life of the grant.
The most recent survey also indicated that over half of the respondents did not
have driver's licenses. Some sample comments from the rider survey:
"If it wasn't for JAUNT I wouldn't be able to keep this job" - A
Charlottesville rider who works the third shift at UYA and has
children in day care.
2
"It is a very good service. It has made a difference in my life to
know that there is help out there and people who care" - A
Charlottesville client who rides JAUNT from daycare to work
"JAUNT has always made sure I was on time for work and had
transportation home (Love JAUNT)"- a rural Albemarle County
rider
"It's a terrific program. If it wasn't for JAUNT I wouldn't have a way
to work and I'm finally getting on my feet thanks to y'all." - A
Fluvanna rider who rode JAUNT every day until she received a car
through a local program.
Service levels continued to rise over the course of the program, while cost per
trip declined (see chart below). In the first months of the program JAUNT
provided one trip per hour and by grant's end, that figure had risen to over three
trips per hour. This increase in productivity resulted in being able to provide
more trips than originally projected. Total hours of service over the entire course
of the grant were 17,621; 67,884 trips were provided on both CTS and JAUNT.
VIEW Ridership on JAUNT
3500
3OO0
2500
2O00
1500
1000
5OO
Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep
'97 '98 '98 '98 '98 '98 '98 '99 '99 '99 '99 '99
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Trips
Hours
3
Revenues and Expenditures
Grant Invoice
Project Coordinator and Fringes $62,166
Communications $2,631
Transportation Services $526,364
CTS Pass Sales $7,669
Equipment $260
Vehicle $21',380
TOTAL $620,470
Revenue
Grant Funds $620,236
Fares from non-VIEW riders $234
TOTAL $620,470
Overall costs for the program, including the purchase of an additional vehicle,
amounted to $9.14 per trip. Given the long distances and late night times of
many of the trips, this is a remarkably Iow figure. Some of the trips JAUNT
regularly provided included:
A Charlottesville resident who finished work at 1:30 AM each night, who was
then carried to her day care provider, where all four of children were picked
up and put into child safety seats for the trip home. This trip generally took 45
minutes, not including the time to gather the correct four carseats.
A Fluvanna resident who was picked up at 5 AM each morning and traveled
to her job in Charlottesville - a 60 mile round trip for the driver. When her
VIEW eligibility ended, she had performed well enough in her job that she
could rearrange her hours to ride JAUNT's regular service from Fluvanna.
Continuation of the Project
The program was so successful that JAUNT was able to win federal grant
funding to expand and continue the program through the federal Job Access
grant fund. The new program includes three additional counties: Louisa, Greene,
and Nelson, and also provides expanded fixed route service in the evenings, as
well as two new ridesharing initiatives. The federal government funded
$351,500, and the 50% match will be coming from the State Department of
Social Services. Additionally, since the federal funding was over six months late
in arriving, the JAUNT Board funded the continuation of the project from its own
funds, pending reimbursement from grant dollars.
12/22/99
4
Board of Supervisors
VIEW Community Connections
March 1, 2000
1. JAUNT grant - as described by Donna
Charlottesville Works!
· Federal funds from the Welfare To Work grants
· Albemarle received $30,580 (out of $578,520 in PD 10 and PD 9)
· % of funds must be used for Hard to Employ (TANF, 2/3 specified
barriers and be a long term TANF recipient) or noncustodial parent
or 2/3 specified barriers + post-TANF due to time limit.
· Albemarle used funds for a contract with PVCC and
Charlottesville DSS to provide job readiness training, adult
education/GED training, computer tech classes and paid work
experience (8 hours/week).
· 15 week long classes
· New rules as of October 2000 will eliminate some of the barriersto
get into this program.
· Small number served due to strict eligibility guidelines and
dropouts (6 actually served since September 1999); 3 have dropped
out and are sanctioned in TANF.
Worksource Enterprises-DRS
· Cooperative contract - regional
· WTW funds also
· State contract through Dept. of Rehabilitative Services and
Department of Social Services for Worksource Enterprises to
provide j ob readiness, job training and work experience for TANF
recipients who have a disability.
· As of 2/7/00, Albemarle had referred 23 TANF recipients for
service (10 had completed the Intake, 10 were no-shows, 1
withdrew and 2 were awaiting Intake)
· Of the 10 who completed Intake, 8 were found to have at least one
disability; 2 are pending determination.
· 7 of the 10 have been place in jobs; 2 have been determined to be
medically exempt; 1 enrolled in the Charlottesville Works
program.
· Average wage is $6.50/hr
· Job types: fast food restaurant, waitress, child care facility
o
TeamWorks · Cooperative contract with PVCC, Charlottesville DSS and
Albemarle DSS.
· One Stop and rapid response to employers who hire TANF
recipients.
· Keeps employees on the job by delivering short term emergency
services.
· Develops plans to address personal, family and job related barriers
to success on the job.
· Identify skill gaps in the context of company goals and deliver
appropriate basic skills or job training approved by the employer.
· Funded through TANF funds
· In process of hiring team now.
· Plan to work with minimum of 50 employers and employees per
year.
5. VIEW Coordinating Council
· Cooperative contract- regional
· Funds are used for the following activities:
· a contract with the Chamber of Commerce for staff support to
the Council as well as for supplies, postage, etc.
· Community forum to publicize and celebrate the successes of
welfare reform and challenge area employers and agencies to
remain involved in the effort.
· Planning retreat for the Council and the Business Advisory
Council.
· Regional business parmership conferences.
· A study on job retention for the region.
I
March 1, 2000-10:30 a.m.
/1 Monthly Communications Report of activities from the Albemarle County
School Board to the ~llbemarle County Board of Supervisors.
Recent
Highlights: School Board Briefs (Attachments 1 & 2) - February 14, and
February 28, 2000
The County Spelling Bee winner is a 4th grade student at Broadus
Wood. Alexandra Osvath competed against 7th and 8th graders and
won with the word magnanimus. She will compete in Richmond
this spring.
Dr. Morgan's office sent a letter to legislators to ask the Joint
Legislative Review and Audit Commission to develop the
Composite Index (Fiscal Ability to Pay) Formula to account for the
impact of revenue sharing agreements in jurisdictions having
populations over 75,000. Senator Couric included an amendment
to Senate Bill 30 (SB 30) reflecting this request. This bill did not
make it out of committee.
We attended the VSBA Legislative Conference on February 21-22.
We met with Senator Couric and Delegates Van Yahres and Harris
to receive updates on legislative actions.
SOL Update: Representatives from the School Division are
working in Richmond several days this month to help prepare
Teacher SOL Resource Guides for Language Arts, Science and
Math. The Resource Guides are to be ready in August for teachers
to use.
1
The SOL writing tests will be administered the week of March 6.
We have formed a Budget Committee consisting of Steve
Koleszar, Gary Grant, and Ken Boyd to review the entire school
budget process for next year, to include the CIP process, the
budget book, a possible budget manual, and the timelines
associated with the budget process.
We are in the planning stages of a "spot" redistricting of Cale
Elementary School. Currently, we have 573 students in a school
rated at a capacity of 432, resulting in 4 mobile units on the school
grounds. Cale is projected to have 606 students by next school
year. Without a "spot" redistricting, Cale would be 174 students
over capacity.
The School Board passed the request for a wavier to open before
Labor Day and school will start on Monday, August 28, 2000. The
rest of the school calendar is being developed and is expected to
come to the Board for approval in April.
Middle School Handbook: A new Middle School Handbook has
been developed for distribution to all Middle School students and
parents beginning the 2000-2001 school year. The Handbook will
be used in orientations with rising 6th graders. The Middle School
Handbook compiles information and procedures that are consistent
between all five middle schools in one publication.
Health Textbooks: The Health Textbooks are on display for
public review at the ARC until they are presented adoption at the
March 27 Board meeting.
Future
We have not had any more school days missed by inclement
weather. If we miss another day, we will use up to 4 days from
Spring Break, starting with April 17. School will now end on June
16th.
On Tuesday, March 21, 2000, we will host the Virginia School
Boards Association Central Regional Forum at Monticello High
School, starting at 5:00 pm. This year's featured speaker will be
Dr. Peter Sheras from the University of Virginia Curry School of
Education. All of you have been invited and we hope you can
attend.
A Little Advance Planning! Graduation days for our schools are
as follows, AHS on June 7th, at 6:00 pm; WAHS on June 9 at 8:00
pm; Monticello HS on June 8th at 7:00 pm; and Murray HS on June
7th at 4:00 pm. Please mark this on your calendars!
Albemarle County Cost of Living Report, November 1999:
Recommend that a copy of reports that deal with commonality
issues be sent to the School Board office. A citizen notified the
division about this important report.
Meetings Videotaped: The School Board is considering having its
meetings taped and played on Adelphia Cable. Students at
Monticello High School are willing to tape 3 hours of our Board
meetings each month. If the Supervisors would like us to
investigate the possibility of taping one of your meetings, we
would be happy to do so.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Funding Request - Fore Woods Edge L.L.L.P for
Woods Edge Apartments
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request from Fore Woods Edge L.L.L.P., a limited
partnership, for a $320,000 grant to assist in obtaining
tax-credit preference for the Woods Edge Apartment
complex for the elderly
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White
AGENDA DATE:
March 1, 2000
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
Fore Woods Edge submitted an application in March, 1999 to the Virginia Department of Housing Development
Administration (VHDA) for federal tax credits to build an apartment complex for the elderly called Woods Edge
Apartments, located next to Mallside, also developed by Fore Properties. At that time, they had not received site
plan approval and, therefore, along with other considerations did not attain the point distribution they needed to
qualify for the tax credit financing. Since that time, Fore Woods Edge L.L.L.P has been working with Jefferson
Board of Aging, the minority general partner, to improve their proposal and to complete the required site plan
review process for the 96 apartment complex for the elderly. The application will be submitted to VHDA on March
17th.
DISCUSSION:
Fore Woods Edge and Jefferson Area Board of Aging (JABA) are asking the County to pass a resolution by
March 15, 2000 approving a $320,000 grant to JABA in eight (8) annual installments of $40,000 beginning in
FY02. The attached letter from Fred Karem and Gordon Walker sets out their funding proposal to the Board.
However, the main reason for their request at this time is that the Woods Edge project can receive 10 additional
points on the VHDA Iow-income tax credit application if a local housing authority or local jurisdiction approves
a loan or grant or obligates any funding toward the project.
As explained in the letter, they are concerned that recent changes in the VHDA point system has made it difficult
for the Woods Edge project to earn sufficient points for tax credit financing unless they obtain a funding
commitment from Albemarle County. If Woods Edge is promised a $320,000 grant, they will qualify for 10
additional points, at 2 points for each percentage of the total project ($320,000/$6 million = 5% x 2 = 10 points.
Fore Woods Edge proposes that County funds be used to reduce the rent for 24 of the 96 rental apartments
below that allowed at 50% of household median income in each of the eight years. The rent is estimated to be
in the Iow $500's for a one-bedroom and the Iow $600's for a two-bedroom apartment. This subsidy would reduce
the rent anywhere from $100- $150 per month. If the project does not qualify for VHDA Iow-income tax credit
financing, the project will not go through and the County will not be obligated for the funds.
Fore Woods Edge L.L.C, the majority and managing partner, will commit to sell the development to JABA at the
end of the 15 year tax credit pursuant to an option or right of first refusal. The price will not exceed the
outstanding debt and exit taxes of the for-profit entity at the time of the sale. This proposal will be part of the
proposed VHDA application and will earn an additional 60 points in the VHDA scoring process.
AGENDA TITLE:
Funding Request-
March 1, 2000
Page 2
Fore Woods Edge L.L.L. P for Woods Edge Apartments
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff brings this request forward for the Board's review and funding consideration. Although we have brought
several capital funding requests to the Board's attention in the last several months, i.e. Region Ten, the Paramount,
CALAS, the timeframe for this request does not allow staff to make the same recommendation, which would be to
hold off on a decision until all capital funding requests can be weighed against each other in the context of the total
budget during the March worksessions. In order to obtain any beneficial points on their VHDA application, the
County would need to pass a resolution committing the $320,000 beginning in FY 2002.
This project meets the County's affordable housing goals of providing more affordable units to the elderly population,
particularly in a service accessible urban neighborhood. It also will provide JABA with a valuable asset in 15 years.
However, providing funds for a profit making venture in order for them to qualify for additional Iow-income tax credit
financing does set a precedent for the County in its approach to affordable housing.
00.033
2
02/24/2000 11:39 F.~ SO4 817
F~-24,-OO :10: 5~A FOY'e
P~op~rty c~mpa rty
002/005
February 24, :2000,
The Honorable Robert W. Tucker, Ir.
Cou~y Executive
Coumy of Albemarle
40], Mclnfire Road
Charlor,~ille, VA 22902-4S96
Re: Woods Edge Apartments
Dear Mr. Tucker:
As the two genezal partners in Fora Woods Edge L.P., we a~ain want to thank you,
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Assistant County Executive Roxanne White,
Chiei' of Housing Vir$inia McDonald, and all the officials ~ the County Plarming .
Department and the rest of County govemlltent for your interest in Woods Ecige Aparunents.
This looaI support has been most encottra$ing and apprecia~d,
During the past year, we have worked hard and ~ommi~ed many resources on behalf'
of'our proposed affordable housip~ community for the eld~ly. This new development, wi~
its 96 rental apa~ha~ents, spemal features, social services and support programs, would
provide many worthwhile benefits for Albenlarle County.
This letter is to request a County resolution by March 15, 21)00, approving a $220,000
&rant to th= Jefferson Area Board for Aging, Inc. (JABA), eermerked t'or Woods
Apartments, in eight annual installments of $40,000 dollars, payable for the benefit o~'lhe
project in early January ~ each year. Such action wot~ld constitute local funding which will
quali~ The project for ira additional 9-10 points in the Virginia Housing Development
Au~ority (VHiDA) scoring systent We propose tltat these funds be use:l to allow us to
ceduce the rent, for 24 of the proposed 96 rental apartments, below that allowed at 50% o£
household median income in elmh of the eight years. Re~! directly payable by residents in,
these apartments would be reduced between S100-120 a month, thereby enabling Woods
Edp during this period to serve another segment of the local elderly population which.
otherwise would not quality to pay the affordable projected rents. Any balance- of these
funds temaininl~ each year would be tn~d to i~rease the at'fo~dahilit~ of a limited number of
additional units by reducing the ren~ directly paid by those residents by up to $50 a month.
The initial installmera would not be paid until the s~ond half of' calendar year 200 l, the first
year of operation of the community.
All of us, including you sad your colleagues, were disappoinied when Woods Edge
did not receive tax credits flora the VI-IDA lest lune. A.~ everyone understands, many ofth~
applicants finish very close in scoring; the difference between the lowest ranked '~vinner"
02/24/2000 11:40 FAX 804 817 3230 JABA
~Feb--~2,~-O0 ~.o.-setA Fo~-e pY. oper. t.,y Company 606 252 8087
~003/005
F~.03
Letter to Honorable Robert W. Tucker, Sr., Pa~e 2
and t~,e highest ranked "loser" [n 1he tax cre~t competition oiten is a few points and =egu[=t7
· is 10 poims or less.
Since last summer, we have spent much time dud money ~k~ to =dv~ce the
project ~d im~ove im ~mp~fiv~s ~ ~ s~ scori~ ~tsm. ~es= effo~s h~
in~d~ ~ensive work ~ o~ ~em ~d ~chii~ ~d yo~ Pl~uing De~ent ~
W~& E~e, ~r[or to n~ moth's applicon de~i~e, c~ ob~ fia~ si~ pl~ apprc~
~d ~e 40 ~ints ~d~d by the ~A for su~ pro~ s~.
We also have foughl lenin, hard, slid generally stl~c, azsi~llly ~ opposition w ~um~ro~
~g~ to the Sl~e PI~ pro, ed I~t f~l. ~b~o pro~ls wou}d ha~ si~nifi~tly tilted
&c ~rinE pm~s ag~ th~ ~ul~ pr~c~ m~ng it ~ely ~likely for Woo~
~e lo bring lo~r income eld~ly ho~in~ to Aibem~le C~. ~e pr~os~ ch~g~
includ~ i~e~ such ~ ~e follo~g: r~uci~ ~om ~0 to l~ ~e poi~ aw~d~d to-~ old,fy
~pli~n; s ubst~tially r~din$ ~ili~ of ~is~ng S~gon 8 proj~ lo the
~mp~ve ~v~ ora W~ Edge ~lic~; included l~d pfi~ i~ ~st ~d point
~culat[ons, ~ch ~uld ~ dis~~ed ~~le Co~ ~pli~ i~ s~ring
~ ~plic~m from ~e other juris&c~om ~ ~e "Sinai MSA P~l" ~sc~sed below.
giv~ ~ck [o~ I~ pric~; ~d elimin~n& ~c p~ pra~ ofa~g ten points for ~e
p~pagon of non-profit, like I~A, ~ith l~ss i~ ~ 1% ~e~p of the genc~l
FIo,,wv~r, in early January of this year, the VHDA r~leas~l its I-I~dbook for the 2000,
Plan. which ~ntain~d impo~t provisions not previously released in the Fall for public
comment. A particularly significan~ s~,ion involv~ the "Efficient Use ofB. esourccs"
compor~nl of tl~e scorir~g syste~ with ~n~ "Cost l~r Unit" and "Tax Credit per Unit"
calculations. We never haft a chan~ to challenge tl~ new numb~m es~sblish~! by the Aff,~ncy
for these calculations. Whil~ these numbers likely will reduce scoring for all appliczlions, it
appears the impact will rsn~e widely between 15 and 4~ points, with elderly n~w
construction applicants ge~ng hit harder arid mos~ rehabs ~ceiving less negative impacis
(consistent with VHDA's other recent policy efforts to favor such projects). Woods Edge
Apartmen~ w~ll probably drop about .~$ points f-rcm tam year's scor~ in this category.
Albemarle County compems dirmtly i~ th~ "Small MSA Pool". Historically. thi~ has
been a very competitive citegory, h has included many localities:
Albemf[rl~ County
Amherst County
Bedford City
Bedford County
Bot~tourt County
Bristol Cil~
Campbell County
Charlottesville City
Danville Cit7
Ftuvam~a County
Creme County
Ly~hburg City
Pit:.vylvania Coumy.
Roanoke City
Roanoko County
S~em City
S~ Coun~
W~hin~o~ Coun~
L~ser projects from rural ar~ h~ve also been included in this peel In a~oth~,r change this~
year to the disadvantage of'Albemarle Count, y, VI-IDA has added Four localities from the
norihem Virginia/D.C. suburbs: Clarke County. Culpepar County, FAng Creorge County.
Wan'eh County.
02/24/2000 11:40 FAX 804 817 $250 8ABA ~ ~004/005
'Feab-~24-Oo 'tO:57'A I=o~'e Py, op~r,-I::,..v Campan.v $06 2.~2 8OS~7
F'. 04
Letter to Honor~le Robert W. Tucker, ~r., Page
We want to position Woods lgdge Apartments to be in no less a comparative
~mpetitive position than the successful Projeot in the 1999 Small MSA Pool with th° lowest
score that received the credits. BaSed on 1his year's s~oring system, we figure Wooers Edge is
at or slightly below in "2000 scm-in~" the point level of that project This year's Plan
provides for up to 15 more points for project Amenities. and we are ~nunitting addigonal
money to seek as many o£these points as possible. Rehab projects, onthe other hand, can
generally get many of these extra points due t.o pre-existing condition~ without spending.
more money. In short, we have a solid epplicatioth but the resulls this year are hard to predict
with certainty be. cause of the YHDA changes and several unknown factors prior to submittal
of the other applications,
As discussed, we hav~ apem and committed considerable money to improve the
proposed project and its competitiveness. We ask for these funds from the County to increase
the likelihood of success wi~ VI-IDA for this new development for the elderly, which zll of
us think Albemarle County gres, tly needs.
Our proposal for County consideration is ba~ed on the following provision of th=
VHDA 2000 Plan;
"Section 2(e)... (ii) A resolution passed by the locality in which the proposed
development is to be located committing a Brant or below-rriarket rate loan or a w~iver of taxes
and fees, donaiion of land or other similar supportto the development .... (the amount of such
financin~ or value of local support will b~ divided by the ~ development sources of funds and
the proposed development receives 2 points for each percentage point up to ~ maximum of 40
points.)"
Such particip--tion by Albemarle County definitely strengthens the prospec!s for this
application agains~ those from other communities throughout Virginia. It also increases the
affordability of Woods Edge for more of the Count's senior citizens in need of such decca
nmv hot,sing with a wide ra.nge ofsupporl services and a:tivities both onsite as well az at
JABA's main ra¢iliti~ slightly over a mile away.
Moreover, there is another significant public purpose served tt~rough such County
support. Fore Woods l~dge LLC, the majority and mana&ir~ t~eeeral partner, as part of this
proposed application to the VHDA, would commit to sell the proposed development pursuant
to an option or right of lust refusal to IABA (or its wholly-owned subsidiary) at the end of the
~ 5 year tax credit complianc~ period for aprice not to ~xceed the ou~standin& debt andexit
taxes o£the for-profi! entity at th-q time. This lz~$a=tion structure will give the proposed
deVelopmen160 points in the VI. IDA sooting system. It also gives Albemarle County, through
its Area. Atp~cy on Aging, recognized locally and regionall~y az the number one provider of
services to the elder!y, Lhe optiol~ m own this entire project Ln the future.
We reg,'et this la~e request. Howev~, the recent VHDA a~ustraents in point
calculations require such additional efforts to increase th~ likelihood of sur. c. ess for this
application.
02/24/2000
11:41 FAX $04 $17 $230 JABA
005/005
P-OS
Letter to H~norable Robert W. Tucker, {r., Page 4
Fore Wocdz Ed~e LLC and JA~A m'e exoited abou: this ve~ture wi=h all its spec~l
features and social and supportive ~t, rvices. We a&ain thar~k all the elected and appointed
offirAa~$ in Aibetnarle County for your past a~sista=ce. Like us. we know you have a major
interest in this proposal. We azk for your assistance in working out this additional local
support to improve our chances for making Woods Edge Apartmems a real and important
contributor to the citizens of Albemarle Count'.
Sincerely,
Fore Woods Edge LLC
Fred G. Kar~m. a-Managing Meml~er
Jefferson Area Board flor Aging, Inc.
Gordon Walker, ChiefEx~utive Officer
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Stormwater Control Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion of Program Alternatives
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Mawyer, Davis
AGENDA DATE:
March 1,2000
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS: 1.
Locations
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Map of Stormwater Basin
2. Photos of Stormwater Basins
3. Stormwater Control Projects List
4. Historical and Proposed CIP
Funding
5. Graham memo dated 2/23/00
concerning NPDES, Ph. II
6. Stormwater Control Program
Report
BACKGROUND:
The Stormwater Control Program was established in the CIP to fund the purchase, construction and repair of permanent
stormwater and drainage control facilities throughout the County. Stormwater control facilities include collection and
conveyance structures such as basins, underground pipes and aboveground channels and ditches. These structures are part
of stormwater management systems designed to detain runoff, prevent downstream flooding, minimize soil erosion and improve
the water quality in our streams. Attachments (1) and (2) provide information on the location and nature of basins controlled
by the county.
Sustained growth in the development areas has created a complex environment in which control of flooding, drainage and
stream health are becoming increasingly important issues. Stormwater systems address these concerns, but require planning
for future needs as well as continued and diligent maintenance to ensure proper performance. In a sense, the County is crossing
a development threshold where these issues are increasingly critical to the well being of citizens and businesses, and also
increasingly costly.
DISCUSSION:
Historically, the county's approach to Stormwater Management has been to require construction of private on-site basins to serve
new development, to require maintenance of facilities by private property owners or homeowner's associations through
Maintenance Agreements, to respond to citizen drainage concerns on a case by case basis and to provide planning for regional
basins. Our approach is under increasing financial and political stress as our citizens request the county to provide:
repairs to drainage channels located on private properties which serve public roads.
repairs to failing underground and surface drainage systems, including stream channels, which serve regional (multiple
property) purposes.
Recent efforts have been made by the Board and staff to address these requests. Attachment (3) provides a list of current
drainage improvement projects. Attachment (4) provides a summary of the corresponding increase in CIP funding requested
to address drainage improvements identified throughout our community.
Our challenge is to strategically manage and fund the planning, construction and maintenance of stormwater facilities in a
manner which best serves our citizens. In our evaluation of the alternatives, we reviewed the programs of other progressive
counties and found the following:
· Prince William County is the only county in Virginia with a Stormwater Utility. Several cities have established a Stormwater
Utility (Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Virginia Beach).
· Henrico and Chesterfield counties own and maintain all of the stormwater facilities in those counties. Those programs are
managed by the local government and funded by General Revenue.
· James City County provides assistance to private facility owners and accepts dedication of facilities on a case basis. The
program is managed by local government and funded by General Revenue.
Recently adopted Federal and State regulations, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Phase II, have
been reviewed for impact on our program approach and funding. As outlined in attachment (5), our program substantially
complies with the NPDES requirements and will not be significantly impacted by these requirements until some time between
2003 and 2008.
The customer service and practical alternatives of establishing an independent Stormwater Utility, the option of expanding the
services of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) to include stormwater, as well as the option of continuing to manage
the program by the Engineering and Public Works Department were considered, as outlined by attachment (6).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of items one through three below and requests direction from the Board on the two options
addressed in item four.
1. Prioritize CIP funding for completion of regional drainage area studies as an integrated element of our land use
planning program.
· Drainage studies will help to locate and promote regional facilities, delineate flood plains and protect stream channels.
· Completion of these studies will enable the County to provide funding for needed regional stormwater facilities by allowing
for the assessment of pro-rata contributions from new development and facilitating proffers and/or cooperative efforts with
developers. Without the completion of drainage studies the County is not permitted to charge pro-rata shares to
developers and will not have the information necessary for proffers to be offered.
· The establishment of these regional facilities through developer participation will reduce the ACSA or County's share of
capital costs in newly developed areas, while also reducing overall maintenance costs.
2. Require all future subdivision and site drainage easements to be dedicated to Public Use.
· Facilities would be dedicated to the County or the Service Authority, depending on who is designated as the program
authority.
· Dedication for public use will greatly reduce the time and expense involved in constructing and maintaining stormwater
facilities, but will establish the program authority with the responsibility for ongoing maintenance.
3. Continue to require property owners in areas designated as non-growth in the Comprehensive Plan to maintain
their own facilities.
· Assistance from the county would be provided on a case by case basis.
· A priority list of projects would be developed based on a set of criteria designed to address regional, environmental or
public needs.
· Projects would be completed as General Revenue becomes available in the CIP.
· Funding could be provided through a combination of developer pro-rata contributions and proffers and General Fund
revenue.
4. Stormwater management in areas generally designated for development in the Comprehensive Plan
Staff believes the following options provide the best alternatives for providing stormwater management in the development
areas at this time.
Option 1 - Desiqnate the Albemarle County Service Authority as the Program Authority
· Represents a comprehensive approach, which would designate a specific service area or areas to receive stormwater
services (construction and maintenance).
· All of the stormwater systems within the designated service area would be dedicated to the ACSA unless owners of private
facilities chose not to dedicate their facilities.
· All properties within the designated area would be charged a user fee based upon a yet to be determined standard
(possibly "Equivalent Residential Units" (ERUs), defined as 2000 sf of impervious area per ERU).
· User fees would provide an additional source of funding not currently available
· Financing can be provided through revenue bonds which will not require voter approval through a bond referendum.
· Developer pro-rata shares could be utilized
· ACSA would make final determinations on project funding, priorities and timelines
Option 2 - Desiqnate the County Department of Engineering and Public Works as the Program Authority
· Projects would be handled on a case by case basis.
· A priority list of projects would be developed based on a set of criteria designed to address regional, environmental or
public needs.
· Projects would be completed through the CIP as funds become available.
· Funding could be provided through a combination of developer pro-rata contributions and proffers and General Fund
revenue.
· User fees would not be available to fund construction or maintenance.
· Financing of major stormwater projects would most likely require voter approval through a bond referendum.
· Funding of stormwater needs will require raising additional revenues or large reductions in other capital needs
· The Board of Supervisors would make final determinations on project funding, priorities and timelines
00.034
ATTACHMENT 1
Stormwater Basins Controlled by the County
March 1, 2000
1. Four Seasons Ponds (2)
2. Peyton/Commonwealth Drive
3. Monticello High School/Lakeside Apts.
4. Rio Hills Shopping Center
5. Branchlands (forebay and basin)
6. Berkmar Drive
7. Kegler's/Lowe's
8. Church Road/Hillsdale Drive
9. Smithfield Road
(Canterbury Hills)
10. Colonial Auto/Self-Storage
(partial dedication)
11. Birnam (to be constructed)
MAP OF COUNTY OWNED
REGIONAL STORMWATER
),{ANAGEkIENT FACILITIES
2000 ~ ~" = 850'
FEBRUARY
/
/ROSLYN R [ DOE
SQUIRREL ~
RIDGE ~N,.
RIO HILL
COLONIAL AUTO
./
CHURCH ROAO
8RANCHLANOS tI~[TLA#O'-PONO & FOREBAY
r:\cip\count¥-swm-fac.dgn Feb. 17. 2000
15: 52:04
ATTACHMENT 2
Stormwater Management Facility Photos:
A. Church Road Basin: Northeast corner of Hillsdale Drive and Incarnation Road.
Specifications (RFQ 99-32) 5
B. Branchlands Basin: Northwest of the intersection of Hillsdale and Greenbrier Drives.
Specifications (RFQ 99-32) 7
C. Branchlands Forebay: Immediately south of the Hillsdale Dr. entrance to Food Lion.
Specifications (RFQ 99-32) 9
Do Berkmar Basin: Behind 2120 Berkmar Drive approximately 0.1 mile from Route 29N.
Specifications (RFQ 99-32) 11
E. Peyton Basin: West of the intersection of Peyton and Greenbrier Drives.
Specifications (RFQ 99-32) 13
Rio I-I[[[ ]]asia: Southwest corner of State Route 29 North and Woodbrook Road.
Specifications (RFQ 99-32) 17
Attachment #3
STORMV ATER CONTROL PROJECTS LIST
A. Recently Completed
1. Doyles River Stream Repairs
2. West Pine Dr. Drainage Repairs
3. Four Seasons Pond Repairs
4. Peyton Basin Repairs
Subtotal
B. In Progress
5. Birnam Basin (includes land purchase)
6. Minor Ridge Piping Replacement
7. Brookmill Stream Bank Repairs
8. Monticello H.S./Lakeside Dam Repairs
9. Drainage Basin Study (Aerial Mapping)
10. Rio Hill Basin Repairs
Cost
B. On Hold
$ 45,000
$ 4,500
$140,000
$ 67,000
$256,500
Budget
$420,000
$200,000
$100,000
$ 40,000
$ 45,000
$ 28,000
Funds Available
$170,000
$245,000
$100,000
$ 40,000
$ 45,000
$ 28,000
Subtotal $805,000 $628,000
11. Ricky Road Drainage Repairs
12. Ivy Road Drainage Repairs
13. Westmoreland Court Piping Replacement
14. Georgetown Court Basin Repairs
$ 40,000 $ 0
$ 80,000 $ 0
$ 50,000 $ 0
$ 30,000 $ 0
Subtotal $200,000
$ 0
Total Program Cost $1,261,500
Description of Stormwater Projects
A. Recently Completed
Doyles River Stream Repairs: Rebuilt an eroded st]:eambank of tJ~e Doyles River to protect the Brown's Cove Methodist Church and
protect residences adjacent to the river from flooding.
West Pine Drive Drainage Repairs: Rebuilt a riprap lined drainage channel in the West Wood Subdivision located on Old Ballard
Road.
Four Seasons Pond Repairs: Drained two stormwater control ponds, removed sediment and replaced the outfall structure.
Peyton Basin Repairs: Repaired the outfall pipe and regraded the basin located in the southeast corner of tJ~e intersection of Greenbrier
and Commonwealth Drives.
B. In Progress
Birnam Basin: A major project to purchase land and construct a stormwater cont]:ol basin located in the Birnam Woods/Whitewood
Road area. This project was identified in the 1984 Albemarle County Urban Drainage Report as a means of detaining stormwater
to prevent flooding in the Branchlands drainage channel located on the east side of Hillsdale Drive.
Minor Ridge Piping Replacement: A major stormwater pipe replacement project to provide additional capacity and prevent flooding
in and around 13 residences. The Minor Ridge area is located in the Wynridge Subdivision, north of Greenbrier Drive and west of
Commonwealth Drive.
8.
9.
10.
Brookmill S/]:eam Bank Repairs: Rebuild an eroded s/]:eambank of the Meadow Creek to protect ten residences adjacent to the river
and reduce downstream sedimentation.
Monticello H.S./Lakeside Dam Repairs: Provide a blanket drain on the lower face of the dam to con/]:ol and stabilize leaks through
the dam.
Drainage Basin Study: Aerial mapping to address stormwater issues identified by the Moore's Creek and Meadow Creek drainage
area study.
Rio Hill Basin Repairs: Modify the outlet structure in the basin located in the Rio Hill Shopping Center. Repair a portion of the
conveyance channel in Woodbrook Subdivision.
C. On Hold
11.
12.
13.
14.
Picky Road Drainage Repairs: Provide a storm pipe system to convey drainage from the road. The project is located in the Hessian
Hills area.
Ivy Road Drainage Repairs: A pipe replacement project to provide additional capacity and prevent flooding of low elevation properties
(Teague Funeral Home).
Westmoreland Court: Replace underground piping and rebuild a drainage channel in the Westmoreland Subdivision. Failure of the
existing system has been an erosion concern on two properties since the mid 1980s.
Georgetown Court Basin Repairs: Repair the outfall pipe and regrade the basin located off of Georgetown Road.
00.034
ATTACHMENT 4
Historical Transfers of Current Revenue to the Capital Improvements Fund
CIP Transfer - Gen Govt Project
CIP Transfer - Stormwater Proje
Actual Actual Actual Actual
FYg0 FY91 FY92 FY93
1,431,570 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,257,289
18,930 0 0 0
Actual Actual Actual Actual
FY94 FYg$ FY96 FY97
CIP Transfer - Gen Govt Project 1,360,000 1,642,500
ClP Transfer - Stormwater Proje 0 0
2,130,000 2,305,329
60,000 60,000
CIP Transfer - Gen Govt Project
CIP Transfer- Stormwater Proje
Actual Actual Adopted Recomm
FYg,8 FY99 FY00 FY01
1,215,927 1,602,312 2,157,930 1,974,023
110,000 110,000 0 422,977
CIP Transfer - Stormwater Proje
Requested Requested Requested Requested
FY02 FY03 FY04 FY0$
400,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
02/23/20001:55 PM historical CIP Transfers.xlsSheetl
ATTACHMENT 5
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
William I. Mawyer, Jr., P.E., Director of Engineering and Public Works
Mark B. Graham, Senior Engineer
23 February 2000
NPDES, Phase II Storm Sewer Regulations
Attached to this memo you will f'md my report on the NPDES Phase II training sessions which I attended
in Virginia Beach during December 1999.
This program will require Albemarle County and similar urbanized areas within Virginia to submit a
permit application to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) by March 2003. This
permit will be required for the operation of storm water facilities in these urbanized areas and functions
similar to permits for activities such as sewage treatment plants or industrial activities. While it is not
anticipated the permit application will require extensive resources, some the requirements of the permit
may require additional resources starting in fiscal year 2003.
Albemarle County and other Virginia localities are anticipated to be permitted under a "General Permit"
which will last five years (2003-2008). This General Permit is anticipated to have six performance criteria.
The six performance criteria are:
1) Public Education and Outreach - Educating the public on pollution prevention
techniques. The County already performs many of the measures mentioned with regard
to these criteria.
2) Public Involvement and Participation - Ensure the public can participate in the process of
developing ordinances and has the ability to review the County's performance. The
County already works with most of these criteria through County processes.
3) Illicit discharge detection and elimination - Monitoring and preventing the discharge of
pollutants into the storm sewer system. This will be a new requirement for Albemarle
County and could require extensive resources during the permit period. It will likely
require detailed mapping of the storm sewer system and analysis of discharges.
4) Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control - Almost identical to the County's
Erosion and Sediment Control Program akeady in place.
5) Post-construction Stormwater Management in New Development and Redevelopment -
Almost identical to the County's Stormwater Management Program already in place.
6) Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations - Assuring
County operations, such as parks, building and grounds, vehicle maintenance are all done
such that pollutants are controlled. This is anticipated to require additional resources.
It is anticipated DEQ will not have their permit administration for this program in place until 2002. Until
that time, it will be difficult to precisely define what is required for compliance with each of the six
performance criteria. Until the fall of 2001, it is recommended we simply continue to stay informed on the
program requirements and report our fmdings to others in the County government.
MBG/rm
Attachments:
NPDES Phase II Overview
NPDES Phase II Anticipated Timeline
File: GrahamLNPDES, Phase II Storm Sewer Regulations.doc
NPDES PHASE II
MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4) PERMIT
WHAT IS THIS PERMIT REQUIREMENT?
Under Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, Congress required municipalities to obtain
a permit for the operation of a storm drainage system. These permits are administered
under the same program as discharges from sewage treatment plants or industrial
processes, which covers discrete source of pollutants being discharged into waters of the
United States. This federal program is administered by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), who issues a permit called a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for these discharges. As is done in most states,
Virginia administers this program under EPA's supervision within its boundaries.
Virginia permit requirements must comply with the EPA standards, but having the State
administer this program allows Virginia some flexibility in the areas of permits
requirements and enforcement. In Virginia, this same permit is known as a Virginia
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit and the permitting authority is
the State Water Control Board (SWCB), with administrative support provided by the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
The municipalities1 classified as large or medium size, those with storm drainage systems
serving a population greater than 100,000, were the first to be required the MS4 permits.
That was under Phase I of this program and most of those permits are now in place.
EPA is now beginning implementation of Phase II of this program, under which a permit
will be required for the small municipalities. To this end, EPA promulgated the Phase II
regulations, which were published in the Federal Registrar on December 8, 1999.
The two types of permit available to applicants are also imPortant to note. Individual
Permits require an extensive application process, which is similar to what the large
municipalities were required under Phase I of the program. The second type of permit is
called a General Permit. A General Permit is not actually issued to any particular
permittee. Instead, it is issued to a class of discharge activities (e.g. small municipal
storm sewer systems or equipment maintenance facilities) with certain stipulated permit
conditions. With the General Permit, an applicant simply files a "Notice of Intent" (NOI)
with the program authority and complies with the permit conditions. This is a
"presumptive permit", which means you assume you are covered by the General Permit
unless the permitting authority notifies you the General Permit is not applicable. It is
anticipated the General Permit will apply to Albemarle County and be much more cost
effective than an Individual Permit.
~ note the term "municipality" is used to refer to a urban area rather than an incorporated town or
city within this document
Page 1 of 6
II. WHO IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A PHASE II MS4 PERMIT?
Under the published Phase II regulations, any municipality which operates or controls a
public storm sewer system located within an "urbanized area", or a small municipality
that has been designated as required a permit by the permitting authority, will be required
to obtain a Phase II MS4 permit. For the purpose of this regulation, an "urbanized area"
includes any area so defined by the latest U.S. Census Bureau mapping plus any other
areas that have a total population of at least 10,000 people and a population density of at
least 1,000 people per square mile. While there may be some question as to how the
adjoining area is defined, the ability of the permitting authority to extend this requirement
beyond the urbanized areas appears to leave the final determination in Virginia to the
SWCB, with advice and recommendations being supplied by DEQ. For Albemarle
County, it should be anticipated that a MS4 permit would include all of the developed
areas surrounding Charlottesville where the storm sewer is controlled or operated by the
County.
In the case of Albemarle County, the bigger question is what is meant by "controlling" or
"operating" a public storm sewer system. Based on the opinions expressed by EPA and
DEQ staff administering this program, a public storm sewer system includes any storm
sewer, channels, ditches or other stormwater conveyance which the County currently
controls either through easements or ownership of the physical structures. In other
words, if the County does not have public easements for this drainage or ownership of the
sewer itself, the drainage system is not considered part of a public storm sewer system. It
should be noted this staff interpretation does not appear to have been verified by EPA's
General Counsel, any other part of the federal government or any federal court. Based on
this staff opinion, Albemarle County's permit would only include that stofrn drainage
within a public easement and the regional basins owned and operated by the County. It
should also be noted that the current stormwater management agreements with private
property owners do not appear to extend the County sufficient authority that these
facilities would be considered part of a public storm sewer system, but that opinion has
never been tested.
In summary, it appears Albemarle County will be required to obtain an MS4 permit for
the public storm drainage within the developed area surrounding Charlottesville, but this
should not include storm sewer or ditches controlled by either private property owners or
by VDOT. Despite this, it is anticipated most of the programs implemented under this
permit will be done for the entire County rather than specific to these areas.
III. WHAT DOES THE PERMIT REQUIRE?
The Clean Water Act basically states the permit holder must reduce the discharge of
pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (commonly called "MoE.P."), protect water
quality, and satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act.
M.E.P. is not an absolute level of attainment but a constantly shifting level based on
factors such as the available technology, the ability of the permit-tee to control the
discharged pollutants, and the ability to pay for additional improvements.
Page 2 of 6
As proposed with the Phase II regulations for a MS4 permit, this M.E.P. objective is met
through six criteria. What each of these criteria actually requires is yet to be determined.
At present, the "best guess" is EPA will finalize their model General Permit and
associated guidance in the second half of 2001. Based on current EPA staff opinion, the
six criteria and likely requirements associated with the criteria are as follows:
1. Public Education and Outreach on Storm Water Impacts
This should be anticipated to include measures such as:
a) distributing educational materials on pollution prevention for activities
such as lawn care and home maintenance,
b) providing seminars and presentations to groups such as citizen
associations or schools,
c) providing information and links to others on a County sponsored Internet
Web Page,
d) providing information booths at gatherings such as the County Fair.
It is noted that many of these activities can be implemented using materials that
have already been prepared by others.
2. Public Involvement and Participation
This should be anticipated to include assurances that the local processes are
complying with all Federal, State, and local public notices and participation
requirements. Municipalities will also be encouraged to provide opportunities for
public inVolvement through measures such as local stormwater management
advisory panels and the use of volunteer monitors. Under current Albemarle
County practices, citizens are already able to view permit applications and
supporting documents, which is a substantial part of what this criteria is
anticipated to provide. The biggest question with regard to implementation of this
criteria is whether local programs are expected to give legal standing to citizens in
enforcement of local ordinances and what might result from that standing.
3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination
Currently, sanitary sewage permittees are required to have programs to reduce and
eliminate inflow and infiltration (I&I) into sanitary sewer systems from sources
such as storm drains connecting to sanitary sewers or groundwater leaking into
sewage pipes. The MS4 requirement is the other side of this coin. EPA is now
looking for MS4 permittees to find and eliminate all non-stormwater discharges
into storm drainage systems unless it operates under a separate permit. Under the
Phase I program, the only acceptable' non-stormwater discharges were 'water used
to fight fires, some residential car washing, and connections to springs. Anything
else was either an illicit discharge or a separately permitted source. The possible
sources for illicit discharges would include things such as cross connected sewage
pipes, leaking septic tanks, automotive service areas washing their pavement, and
household hazardous waste (e.g. paint thinners, pesticide residue).
Page 3 of 6
This will probably be the most expensive criteria with respect to Albemarle
County. Among the measures that may be anticipated for permit compliance are:
b)
c)
e)
Development of a storm drainage system map showing all outfalls. Even
though the County may not control the storm sewer in many of these
areas, it is anticipated the County will be expected to map the system for
all drainage that ties into a County controlled facility. This will facilitate
in locating sources of illicit discharges.
Create an ordinance prohibiting illicit discharges into the storm sewer
system, which should include enforcement procedures.
Testing of storm sewer outfalls for suspected pollutants in situations where
repeated problems are noted. This might be in response to citizens'
complaints about the stream, which will likely increase due to the
encouragement of volunteer monitors, public education or in response to
reported illegal activities (e.g. businesses washing equipment over storm
drains).
Assure there are adequate means for disposal of household hazardous
waste. This may mean little more than providing information on where to
dispose of household hazardous waste or might require establishing a
drop-off center.
Create and distribute educational materials informing the public of hazards
associated with illicit discharges and how to properly dispose of these
wastes. This measure ties into the public education criteria listed above.
4. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
This requirement will likely be considered complete under the Erosion and
Sediment Control part of the County's Water Protection Ordinance. The one new
area will be verifying any construction site disturbing more than one acre has filed
for the VPDES permit required for construction activities. Verification is
anticipated to simply require the permit applicant to supply the County with a
copy of their VPDES permit application, which is typically a one page form.
It should be noted that one change resulting from these criteria would be the
standing of citizens with regard to this ordinance. Currently, the only people that
have standing with regard to the County's Erosion and Sediment Control
Ordinance are the owner of the permitted property, downstream property owners,
and government agencies or officers. Under the new MS4 permit, anyone in the
County would have standing regarding the MS4 permit or a VPDES permit for
construction activity. This means anytime the proverbial granny in tennis shoes
gets upset, the whole thing can potentially end up in court.
Page 4 of 6
e
Post-construction Stormwater Management in New Development and
Redevelopment
This criteria is essentially the same as what the County already provides under the
Stormwater Management and Water Quality parts of the Water Protection
Ordinance. Acceptance of the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook for
technical guidance should assure compliance with these criteria. It may be
necessary to enhance our inspection process and demonstrate an ongoing
maintenance program for the County BMPs, but it is too early to know how
extensive a measure will be required under the permit.
6. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
The biggest part of these criteria is anticipated to be an ongoing operations and
maintenance program for pollutant runoff from County operations. This might
include operations such as County parks and building grounds, as well as any
other facilities the County operates. It is anticipated the County's Vehicle
Maintenance Facility will be required to obtain an Industrial VPDES permit,
which should separate it from this permit.
IV. WHAT IS THE TIMEFRAME FOR THE PERMIT?
The Phase II regulations require the County to submit a permit application no later than
March 8, 2003. This is the date by which the County is required to have filed a Notice of
Intent. After filing the N.O.I., the County will then have five years to comply with the
conditions of the General Permit. EPA anticipates they will have a model General
Permit, with the associated guidance that can be used by the state permitting authorities
in the second half of 2001. To facilitate in understanding this process, an anticipated
timeline for this permit has been attached.
V. WHAT ARE THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PERMIT COMPLIANCE?
Until EPA finalizes its guidance and model General Permit, it is not possible to quantify
the eventual costs associated with this permit. EPA is sensitive to the concern of costs
from the perspective of cost effectiveness of any new program and allowing an adequate
period of time for phasing in those costs. This is why the time period for implementation
of the permit requirements will cover the five years between the NOI deadline (March
2003) and the expiration of that General Permit in 2008.
With respect to Albemarle County, the biggest cost' items are anticipated to be the
development and operation of an illicit discharge elimination program and development
of a public education program. How extensive these programs will need to be is
impossible to determine at this time. The present "best guess" is this permit will
eventually require 1-2 additional full time employees to manage these program elements.
The County may also need to contract with an environmental consulting firm at the
beginning of the 2003 fiscal year for assistance in preparing documentation associated
with the permit NOI.
Page 5 of 6
NPDES PHASE II
MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4) PERMIT
ANTICIPATED TIMELINE
December 8, 1999
October 2000
March 2001
October 2001
November 2001
December 2002
March 8, 2003
March 8, 2004
Mar 8, 2005- Mar 8, 2008
March 8, 2008
EPA publishes Phase II Regulations in Federal Registrar.
Draft Best Management Practice (BMP) guidance made available
for public comment.
EPA finalizes BMP guidance and issues to states. Virginia is
anticipated to use the already published Virginia Stormwater
Management Handbook. EPA is anticipated to make significant
reference to this manual.
Model General Permit issued by EPA for use in developing state
specific General Permits.
Virginia State Water Control Board initiates administrative process
for issuing General permit in Virginia.
Virginia State Water Control Board finalizes General Permit in
Virginia and has published in Virginia Registrar.
Deadline for filing permit application or Notice of Intent (NOI) to
be covered by General Permit.
First annual report to State Water Control Board by municipality
on compliance with permit.
Second through fifth annual report to State Water Control Board
by municipality on compliance with permit. Full compliance with
General Permit conditions is to be shown by fifth annual report.
Issuance of second General Permit for next five years.
Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT 6
Report to the Board of Supervisors
on the
Stormwater Control Program
March 1, 2000
Purpose:
Provide master planning and stormwater controls to
manage the quantity and quality of runoff in order to
protect properties, stream channels, and environmental
resources.
Historical Overview:
· The Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances (pre 1980) defined the "stormwater
detention area". Any development within that area required the post-
development rate of stormwater discharge be equal to the pre-development
rate. An Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance was adopted concurrently
with these ordinances.
The Runoff Control Ordinance (1980) required control of both the rate and
quality of post-development stormwater from developments within the
watersheds of drinking water supply reservoirs.
Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance (1991) required 100 foot
buffers along all perennial streams delineated with a solid blue line on
USGS maps.
Water Protection Ordinance (1998) combined the stormwater management
and resource protection features of the previous ordinances into one
ordinance and applied them county-wide.
General Objectives:
1. Control of erosion and sedimentation from land disturbing development.
2. Assure post-development stormwater runoff does not exceed pre-development
runoff.
3. Catch "First Flush" pollutants from paved areas by Best Management Practices
before they reach streams.
Page 1
4. Protect stream buffers from land development to maintain healthy streams.
Challenges:
1. Private vs. Public Responsibility for Maintenance
· 11 Stormwater Basins controlled by the County
· 100 Stormwater Basins privately owned, maintained and inspected
annually by the County.
· Miles of above ground drainage channels, serving public roads, privately
owned and maintained.
· Miles of underground pipe systems, privately owned and maintained.
2. Long Term Planning
Develop long term stormwater management plans to locate and promote
regional facilities, delineate flood plains and protect stream channels. This
effort may include:
· Drainage area studies and mapping.
· Acquisition of property, with possible private parmership.
· Construction of facilities, with possible private parmership.
Funding Alternatives · General Revenue.
· Development Fees.
· Stormwater User Fees.
What Others Are Doing:
· Prince William County is the only County in Virginia with a Stormwater
Utility. The Utility generates $2.4 M of a total annual budget of $4.5 M.
· Chesterfield County manages stormwater through an Environmental
Engineering Department with an annual budget of $2 M funded by General
Revenues. All of the stormwater systems are owned and maintained by the
county.
· Henrico County manages stormwater through the Public Works Department.
Funding is provided by development fees and General Revenues. Henrico
Supervisors voted not to establish a Stormwater Utility. County owns
underground pipe systems. County provides long term maintenance of all
Page 2
BMP basins. Neighborhood associations provide short term (mowing, trash
removal) for private BMP basins.
· James City County manages stormwater through the Environmental
Engineering division with an annual budget of $50 K from General Revenues.
JCC provides long term maintenance of drainage facilities (channels, basins).
Land owners/associations provide short term maintenance (mowing, trash
removal) for private facilities. JCC previously rejected creation of a Utility
and has not given stormwater responsibility to the water/sewer authority.
· The cities of VA Beach ($15.2 M), Norfolk ($9.6 M), Chesapeake ($3.1 M),
Hampton ($2.4 M), Newport News ($3.5 M) and Portsmouth ($3.3 M) have a
Stormwater Utility administered by the Engineering or Public Works
Department.
· Program Approach Options
1. Provide services (planning, construction and maintenance) county-wide on a
case basis utilizing General Funds
2. Provide services (planning, construction and maintenance) county-wide under
a comprehensive approach which charges everyone a user fee and accepts all
facilities into the county system.
3. Provide services with a composite, 2 fold approach:
1. Case specific approach for areas designated as nongrowth in
the Comprehensive Plan.
· Address drainage issues on a case basis. Develop criteria to
assess the appropriateness and priority of specific projects
based on regional, environmental or public needs. Similar to
the James City County model.
· Create a prioritized list of projects, similar to our Unpaved
Roads Program.
· Complete projects as General Revenue becomes available in
the CIP.
Comprehensive' approach for areas designated for
'development in the Comprehensive Plan (such as Piney Mt.,
Airport Road, Mill Creek, Pantops)
Comprehensive approach would designate an area or areas of
the county to receive stormwater services.
All properties within the designated area would be charged a
user fee based upon a yet to be determined standard (possibly
"Equivalent Residential Units" (ERUs), defined as 2000 sf of
Page 3
impervious area per ERU).
· All of the stormwater systems within the designated area
could be dedicated to the stormwater manager.
· The County or the Service Authority could serve as the
program manager.
· Funding provided by a combination of developer pro-rata
contributions and proffers, User Fees and General Revenue.
File: MawyerXBOS budget stormwater information.doc
Page 4
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Long-Range Capital Needs
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Worksession on Long-Range Capital Needs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Mr. Foley, Ms. Gulati
AGENDA DATE:
March 1,2000
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION: X
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
In light of ongoing revenue limitations within the Capital Improvement Program, as well as the significant long-range capital needs
facing the County, staff has identified the need for a strategic planning process that will a) identify the long-range needs facing
the County, b) solicit guidance from the Board on County funding priorities; and c) address options for financing the County's long-
range capital needs priorities.
The first of three work sessions on County long-range capital needs was held at the Board's January 5, 2000 meeting. This work
session addressed long-range needs related to court facilities, administrative space, facility maintenance and upkeep, fire/rescue
facilities, public safety space needs and public safety technology. A second work session was held on February 2 2000 that
addressed parks and recreation, library facilities, stormwater control, and school needs.
DISCUSSION:
The third long-range capital planning session will address community development needs. Staff will wrap up the discussion of
long-range capital needs by focusing briefly on those specific issues that impact the FY 2000/01 operating and capital budgets,
and that will require a Board decision during budget work sessions.
A discussion of financing options with the financial adviser will be held in April. At this time, staff will come back to the Board with
a preliminary priority list of long-term capital needs, and possible financing options from the Financial Adviser.
Over the next year, staff will develop a more comprehensive (ten-year) long-range capital needs assessment and fiscal impact
analysis on all capital projects. This information will be used to develop a prioritized list of long-range capital needs that wil form
the basis of future five-year CIPs and the overall financing strategy to be developed with the Financial Adviser.
RECOMMENDATION:
The above is provided for information purposes only, and requires no action at this time.
Albemarle County, Virginia
Long- Range Capital Needs
Strategic Planning
Community Development
Neighborhood & Community
Tmprovements
Transportation ]:nfrastructure
Acquisition of Conservation Easements
Neighborhood &
Community Development
Plans/Source of Identified Need:
Comprehensive Plan
Crozet 8, Pantops Community Plans
PACC Area "B" Studies
MPO Studies (Rt. 29 Pedestrian Study;
Pedestrian Obstacle Study)
Bicycle Plan for Charlottesville &
Albemarle County
Neighborhood &
Community Development
Policies:
Urban Area
i Provide urban and regional public facilities &
services
? Geographically defined neighborhoods
supported by collector & minor arterial
streets, pedestrian & bicycle circulation
systems
2
NeighborhoOd &
Community Development
Policies:
Communities
~ Neighborhood Areas supported by collector
roads, pedestrian & bicycle circulation
systems, and public services
~ Public facilities supporting the communities,
and surrounding County areas
Neighborhood &
Community Development
Identified Needs:
Sidewalk Construction
-~ Streetlamp Program
Pedestria n/Bikeway
Program
!Neighborhood/
Community
Development Plan
i,? Greenways Plan
Total
$22.5 Million
$2.0 Million
$1.6 Million
$7.9 Million
$1.0 Million
$35.0 Million
3
Neighborhood &
Community Development
Operating Budget Impact:
~ Staffing/consultant costs to assist/
facilitate development of plans for 7 urban
neighborhoods & 3 communities
~ Other Ongoing:
!~ Streetlamp Electricity
~ Greenways Maintenance
Other Maintenance Not Provided by VDOT or
Homeowner's Grou ps
Neighborhood &
Community Development
Issues for Consideration:
~ Financial Commitment to £den##edProjects?
~; Financial Commitment to Additional Projects - DTSC,
Other Neighborhood/Community Plans?
~ Provide identified public improvements concurrently with
development projects (condemnation, construction,
immediate funding)?
~ Tncreased Role for Public Works/Parks & Recreation?
(Roadway landscaping, Street Furniture, Pocket Parks,
Public Parking)
Transportation Infrastructure
Plans/Source of Identified Needs:
~ Comprehensive Plan
~ Crozet Communib/Plan
~ Charlo~esville Area Tran$, Study (CATS)
~i Other MPO Plans
Transportation Infrastructure
Support Regional Transportation Planning Through CATS
Provide appropriate transportation alternatives
:Integrate & promote alternatives to automobile
Ensure consistency with land use/environmental policies
Provide County transportation system that supports
growth management & public safety
Provide well-planned, safe & convenient roadways
Encourage use of public transportation, car/van pooling,
park & ride
Employ various transportation modes, including walkways
& bicycle facilities
Transportation Infrastructure
Identified Needs:
~ Meadowcreek
Parkway
~ Southern Parkway
~ Rte 240/250
Connector
:~ Traffic Calming
~.~¥ Park & Ride
$32.0 Million
~ $10.0 Million
~ $10.0 Million
~ $1.0 Million
~ $019 Million
Total $53.9 Million
Transportation Infrastructure
Operating Budget Impact:
Funding to Develop Road Plans Normally Prepared by
VDOT
Additional Staffing to Pursue Park & Ride, Traffic Calming
& Other Local Tnitiatives
Transportation Infrastructure
.~ ........ ..... . ........... ~.~
Issues for Consideration:
~ Tdentified Road Projects Over 20 Years Old.
~ Fund accelerated road development/right-of-way acquisition to
protect corridors from development?
~ Require/Provide road interconnections among residential
areas to reduce traffic demand on major roads?
; Additional funding to JAUNT, CTS or others to provide
broader range of alternative transportation modes to
avoid reliance on automobiles and additional public road
improvements?
Acquisition of Conservation
Easements
Plans/Source of Identified Needs:
Comprehensive Plan
Open Space Plan
Policies:
Promote protection of open space through conservation
easement, purchase or development of fee simple or
development rights
Pursue purchase of development rights program as
recommended by the ACE Committee
Acquisition of Conservation
Easements
:~.:...?~
Identified Needs:
~ ACE Program ~ $1.0 Million Per Year
Operating Budget Impact:
~ Staffing to Implement/Administer Program
Acquisition of Conservation
Easements
Issues for Consideration:
Level of Funding Necessary to Make ACE Effective
~ Defining a Successful Program
Level of Staffing Needed to Support Program
Administration
Promotion/Marketing
Pursue Funding Alternatives or Innovative Approaches to
Enhance Program
Summary and Wrap Up
Where do we go from here?
Summary- Long Range Needs
Increasing capital needs competing for
financial resources: FY01-05
FY 01-05 CIP Transfer = 2 - 2.6 % of General Fund
45% to Technology & Ongoing Maintenance
55% to New Projects: $:L-2 Million/Year
Operating Budget Can Not Absorb Substantial
Tncreases in the transfers to C[P or Debt Service
FY 00-04 CIP:
FY 01-05 CIP:
$16.3 Million Unfunded (GO Bond)
$25.5 Million Additional Unfunded
$41.8 Million Total Unfunded
Summary- Long Range Needs
Additional Long-Range Needs: FY01-10
~ Additional Fire/Rescue Stations: North, West
I Continued Athletic Field Development
~ Indoor Recreation Facilities at Schools
! New Library Facilities: North, West, South
~ Public Safety Technology Needs:
800 MHz Communication System
Mobile Data Technology
Video Cameras in Patrol Cars
Summary- Long Range Needs
Stormwater Control
COB Administrative Space
Facility Maintenance/Repairs
School Facilities: N. Elementary &, N. Middle
(FY06-10) N. High School (after FY10)
Long-Term Strategy
Strategy is to Develop lO-year Needs
Assessment & Financing Plan
' Identify Long-Range Capital 'Needs
~ Delete or Defer Projects
~ Prioritize Remaining Projects
~ Develop lO-Year Financing Plan for Capital
Needs
Next Steps
March - finalize contract for Financial Adviser
Scope of Services
Review County's existing debt service, financial
policies, investment policies, etc,
Evaluate County's financial condition/debt capacity
Review capital improvement program and long-
term capital needs;
Analyze financing alternatives and timetable
Develop :[0-year capital financing plan
Prepare County for referendum and bond rating
Financial Advisors meet with Board on April
5th
MARCH 1, 2000
CLOSED SESSION MOTION
I move that the board go into closed session
pursuant to section 2.1-344(a) of the Code of Virginia
· Under subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards and commissions;
· Under subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of
property for school sites; and
Under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel
and staff regarding pending litigation relating to the
Ivy Landfill]~and regarding specific legal matters
relating to ~n interjurisdictional agreement.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Laurie Bentley, C.M.C., Senior Deputy Cler~ ~ ~/
February 25, 2000
Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
I have updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through
May 31, 2000.
cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis
Ch'ville Regional Chamber of Commerce
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr.
Scottsville
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mdntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Riv~nna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
March 3, 2000
Mr. Hollis Lumpkin
P.O. Box 89
Scottsville, VA 24590
Dear Mr. Lumpkin:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on March 1, 2000, you were reappointed as the
Scottsville Magisterial District representative to the Albemarle County Service Authority, with
said term to run from April 17, 2000 through April 16, 2004. I have enclosed an updated roster
for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/lab
Enclosure
cc: James L. Camblos, III
Larry Davis
J. W. Brent
Printed on recycled paper
David R Bowerman
I~o
Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphfis
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
March 3, 2000
Mr. David A. Moyer
Rt. 1, Box 663
Crozet, VA 22932
Dear Mr. Moyer:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on March 1, 2000, you were reappointed as the
Scottsville Magisterial District representative to the Albemarle County Service Authority, with
said term to run from April 17, 2000 through April 16, 2004. I have enclosed an updated roster
for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/lab
Enclosure
cc: James L. Camblos, III
Larry Davis
J. W. Brent
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBF2vIARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntim Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Sall~ H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
March 3, 2000
Ms. Karen V. Lilleleht
2984 Mechum Banks Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Ms. Lilleleht:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on March 1, 2000, the Board appointed,you to
the,Housing Committee, with said term effective January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2002. I
have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/iab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
Larry Davis
Ginnie McDonald
Printed on recycled paper
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 229024596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print.)
Board/Commission/Committee
Applicant's Name ~g~ V, L[ /.-L.(~- ]._~f'- HomePhone
FttllHomeAd&ess 2fig ~5 jgq ~c gu/Y} ~k) l{~.% ~..~r~ ,
i
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located ~ ~ ~ O ~ L- /g') / L_ ~_ -~'/~_
Employer ~ O/0 ~. Phone
Business Ad&ess
Occupation/Title ~ g.-~ ~ ~
Years Resident in Albemarle County ~/4-
Previous Residence
Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates)
Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or Social Groups
Date of Employment
Spouse's Name L~
Number of Children
Public, Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests
Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee "~T
The information provided on this application will be released to the public upon request.
Date
Return to:
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902.4596
FAX: (804) 296-5800
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Laurie Bentley, C.M.C., Senior Deputy Clerk ~0~J/
Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: February 25, 2000
RE: Applications for Boards and Commissions
I have attached a list of applicants interested in current vacancies on Board and Commissions that have
been recently advertised, and have included their applications. Thank you.
Attachments: 3
cc: Bob Tucker
Larry Davis
BOARD OR COMMISSION
NEW TERM
EXPIRE
DATE
APPLICANT/
INCUMBENT
C~a Deupr~
Bruce Wollenberg
:::::::: ~:i:~:i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~::~::~:~.~::~.:~:.~:::~.::~:::::::::::::::~::~::~:~.~::~::¥:::::::~:~::.:~::~::::~::.~:::::~:::~::::~:
:~.::~::::~:::~:::~.:~.:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::v.:::::i:i::~:!:i:~:::::::::::::::::::::
Karen V. Lilleleht
INTERVIEW,
IF
SCHEDULED
~:!:~.~..'::':~:::~ ~::::'~ :~:::~.:~ ~::::.:~:~:~:.::
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of'County Supervisors
401 Mci. ut[re Rbad
Charlottesville, VA 22902..4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION./COMMIT~E
(please type or print)
Board/Commission/Committee .~;Jci~r~ /3r~k)~Sa~'~
Applicant's Name ~_~,r~ ~. ~)~,_~x-~--~- Home Phone
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located ~,,,.','w,,,~-~ '('~\
Employer ._c"~L ~ Phone
Business Address ~'~x.~
Date ofErnployment [n~,~ _ -~,
Years Resident in Albemarle County
S po use ' s Nam e ~--~..x4,~.a..% ~3r~L,,-t~."~ ~ Y'L*--- Number o f Children
Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) l~a..~r~,.f~ f_~ . .~--~[~x~.._.
Membershir)s in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Grour)s
Public, Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or Interests
Occupation/Title
Previous Residence,,~,lt9 [c~,~7_.l.-.~..~k),t~ C_~..-~okg~' JLa
Reason(s) for Desire to Serve on this Board / Commission / Committee
The informa~ifffi provided on this application will be released to the public upon request.
.,) Signature
Return to: (~l,~rk, BqarA! of County Supervisors
.AJpe. m. a.r Ie
~ clntir ~t
~h~'it~ttes~le,°O~ 22902-4596
Date
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of Coun_ty Supervisors
401 Mclntire Rbad
Charlottesville, VA 229024596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMrlTEE (please type or pria0 .
Board/Commission/Committee i l
Applicant's Name B?fM_t~ ~, [_A/ol(~-,~J~.~f'~ HomePhone q
Magisterial District in which your home resideri~ is located ·
Employer C~h .~Xte,/~ ~h;i,,cr~_~{e~, Phone
BusinessAddress 100 /[!A .evvta. Kd.
Date of Employment ~'//,.,f'/q _,~ Occupation/Title
Years Resident in Albemarle Coun~ [. _~ Previous Residence
Spouse's Name ,,~.,~, ~. Number of Children
Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) ? ~. /~, ! ~_t'~
Memberships i7 Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Grouos
Public, Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or Interests
Re~on(s~ for Desire to Se~e on this Bo~d / Commission / Commi~ee
~e iffomaion provided on ~[s application will be mle~ed t~ ~e public upon reque~.
Si~re ~ Dam
Return to: t~lork, Bqar. gl of .County Supervisors
~A pe.m~ a~r kc. county.
.'~u. I clntlr lq
Ch aTt~es~le,~X 22902-4596
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS